Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Oil Pollution

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ban single-hulled oil tankers from British waters. [17992]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government have participated fully in amendments to international regulations, which will phase out the use of conventional single-hulled tankers over the next 30 years.

Mrs. Campbell: Why does the Secretary of State not start work now, through the International Maritime Organisation, to change the requirements for 30-year changes to tanker design? We need the world's tanker fleet to become safe as soon as possible. Thirty years is surely unacceptable.

Sir George Young: No country has banned the use of single-hulled tankers, but the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that we have started with increased inspection of older ships. One must bear in mind the fact that 93 per cent. of the fleet have single hulls, so obviously there are constraints on the speed with which one can move to alternative use.

Mr. David Nicholson: In view of the enormous damage to wildlife and the immense cost that the recent Milford Haven upset has caused—I am thinking of the coasts of Cornwall and Devon as well as that of Wales—what urgent measures can my right hon. Friend pursue in the meantime, especially with regard to improving the training of tanker crews as there is some suggestion that badly trained crews have caused some of the mishaps?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the marine accident investigation branch is conducting an inquiry into the accident at Milford Haven. It will consider issues such as those that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It will be able to publish interim reports if lessons need to be learnt urgently, and one such special bulletin was published last week. The inquiry will cover the question of crew training.

Mr. Allen: In respect of the single-hulled Sea Empress, will the Minister ensure that the MAIB inquiry considers not only the advice given to Ministers about the incident but the responsibility that those Ministers must bear for having accepted in its entirety advice that was wholly and wildly optimistic?
The Minister failed to learn the lessons of the Braer disaster and the Brora disaster. Will he ensure that he learns the lessons of the Sea Empress disaster and that a tug is stationed in the western approaches at the earliest possible moment, and not in a year's time when the inquiry reports? Is there a tug in place in the western approaches today to prevent the possibility of a recurrence tonight of what happened to the Sea Empress?

Sir George Young: On the first point, the MAIB is independent of the Department of Transport. It has published reports which have criticised the Department and I have no doubt that it will criticise the Department in the future if it finds grounds so to do.
On the second point, lessons have been learnt from the Braer. There was a similar inquiry into that incident and then there was the Donaldson report, 86 recommendations of which have already been accepted.
Finally, as regards tugs, we accepted Lord Donaldson's recommendations that priority should be given to the Minches and the Dover straits. Tugs were stationed in those places straight away.

Civil Air Transport Regulation

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet European Transport Commissioner Kinnock to discuss the regulation of civil air transport in Europe. [17993]

Sir George Young: I met Mr. Kinnock on 5 February and discussed a number of matters, including civil air transport. No further meetings are planned at present.

Mr. Wilkinson: Given the evident inability of Commissioner Kinnock to regulate fair competition within the European Union, as evidenced by his accession to the Spanish Government's request to pump an extra £600 million or so into Iberia in addition to the large sum that they pumped in about five years ago, thus taking the figure well over £1 billion, will the Secretary of State go straight to Luxembourg and lodge an action with the European Court in view of the clear breach of article 92 of the treaty of Rome, which purports to ensure fair competition within the European Union?

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend that it was a disappointing decision which allowed Spain to subsidise Iberia to the tune of £566 million. It will distort competition and it is unfair to the United Kingdom airlines, which compete without subsidies. It is the second huge payment to Iberia in four years. We shall study the decision closely and consider carefully what options are available to us to take the matter further.

Public Transport Use

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change in the level of use of public transport his Department forecasts for the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [17994]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The Government do not make forecasts of that sort.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that his answer is not helpful? Obviously, if there is to be an increase in the use of public transport, there needs to be major public investment. Does the Minister recognise the need to meet the requirements of the disabled who need to be able to get on and off public transport if they are to be able to use it? Investment is needed as soon as possible.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right: my answer was not very helpful. His supplementary question, however, was based on at least two fallacies. It is not inevitable that large improvements in public transport need to depend on public subsidies; the case that he mentioned is evidence of that. Low-floored buses, which allow the disabled to gain access on the same basis as other people, are also useful to mothers with buggies or children, people with lots of shopping and those who do not walk or get about particularly well. Operators are finding that those buses pay for themselves. Private sector operators are happy to make that sort of investment.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that buses are now reaching parts of my constituency of Chipping Barnet that it was never dreamt they could reach 10 years ago? Although I understand that 90 per cent. of passenger and freight traffic goes by road, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that 75 per cent. of his Department's budget for London should be spent, as it is, on public transport services in our capital city?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right about the proportion of the Department's budget that is spent on public transport in the capital city. My hon. Friend is also right to state that buses provide the key to improving the public transport quality in an area such as the one that he represents. That is why my bus working group—which brings together operators, local authorities and officials from the Department—has been looking at ways to enhance the quality of bus services. In so doing, it has been able to achieve a remarkable degree of unanimity; there is agreement across the board that we need to make buses more attractive to more people so that they are used for more journeys.

Ms Short: Will the Minister explain why the Government attempted to keep hidden their own forecasts of road congestion, which the Royal Automobile Club describes as a
nightmare vision of the future"?
Will he confirm that the maps predict chronic congestion and gridlock on increasingly large sections of the road network in the near future? Does he agree that the only way forward for the country is increased use of public transport, which will not come about with our deregulated and declining bus services with passenger miles

decreasing and our fragmented rail services, which have resulted from privatisation and in which there has been underinvestment?

Mr. Norris: I appreciate that not many hon. Members visit the Library, but I would hardly call placing a document in the Library keeping it secret. The plans on congestion are straightforward: they show the congestion that will arise if the growth in transport is entirely unaffected by any Government action and if no more roadworks are carried out. The question is one for the hon. Lady, whose party is in a dreadful mess over the road-building programme. As that forecast is the inevitable and logical consequence of doing nothing to our road system, when will she and her party come off the fence and make it clear that we need a generous and vigorous road programme and that the Labour party's talk of cancelling or abandoning the road programme is utter nonsense?

London Underground Northern Line

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in the supply of new trains for the Northern line. [17995]

Mr. Norris: The first of the trains will be delivered during 1996, and will come into service at the beginning of 1997.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for his progress report on the £1 billion investment in the Northern line, which constitutes the largest single private finance initiative project. He said that the first train would come into service early in 1997; can he and I agree to celebrate a happy new year on that first train on 1 January 1997?

Mr. Norris: Not necessarily on 1 January—I applaud my hon. Friend's enthusiasm, but I hope that he will not mind if I temper it slightly. I have every confidence that the new fleet of trains—delivered, as my hon. Friend pointed out, under the private finance initiative—will massively enhance the service offered to Northern line travellers; 50 per cent. of the current down time on the line is due to train faults, a problem that will be eliminated immediately by the introduction of this excellent new stock.

Ms Glenda Jackson: How confident is the Minister that the new trains will have a track worthy of their newness, given that large sections of the Northern line are having to be closed so that necessary repairs can be carried out? The need for those repairs is a direct result of the Government's failure to invest adequately in London Transport over the past 16 years.

Mr. Norris: I am very confident. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should wail about lack of investment, given that it invested only about a quarter of the amount that the Government are now investing. Now that we have launched a massive programme of investment to improve the Northern line, Labour Members have the sheer cheek to complain about the disruption that may be caused. Passengers see with their own eyes the improvements that are being made and they wholly reject the hon. Lady's thesis.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents travel on the Northern line from Edgware and Colindale stations? When the new trains start to run at the end of the year, will he ensure that their introduction is accompanied by improvements in infrastructure and electronic arrangements on the line as there have been many mistakes, failures and disappointments so far?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right: as well as introducing new trains, we need to give thought to signalling, power supply and track quality. We are already undertaking an extensive programme of refurbishment and improvement at stations so that we can improve the overall quality of the service offered to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are also looking for ways in which we can further harness private finance to make improvements at a rate that would not be possible if we relied solely on the taxpayer for funds. That is the key. We have the prospect of delivering £1 billion-worth of improvements to the Northern line, and the private sector can provide the vast majority of the money.

West Coast Main Line

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on safety improvements on the west coast main line in 1995. [17996]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Railtrack's expenditure on renewal and maintenance of the west coast main line in 1994–95 totalled £129 million. Expenditure on safety cannot be identified separately. Expenditure by Railtrack and train operators provides a mixture of safety and other benefits.

Mr. Cunningham: Given events at the weekend—especially the smash in Staffordshire—does the Minister not think it about time that safety expenditure was separately identified, so that hon. Members could scrutinise it?
Is the Minister aware that there are frequent breakdowns on the Euston to Birmingham line? Last month there were delays of up to an hour and a half. Many passengers were stranded and had to get on the next train, where they found that there were no seats and became involved in rows with conductors about using first-class accommodation. Does the Minister consider that satisfactory?

Mr. Watts: Nearly all expenditure on improving and maintaining infrastructure has some safety benefits. That is why it is not possible to make the false distinction suggested by the hon. Gentleman. As for the west coast main line generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that Railtrack has a large investment plan, the first stage of which will be the letting of a contract to develop a new signalling system later this month.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the scene which resulted from the horrendous accident in my constituency of Stafford at the weekend was absolutely deplorable, that it was a miracle that lives were not lost on a substantial scale and that the proposal for an internal inquiry is wholly inappropriate? Does he agree that there should be a full and complete public inquiry to deal with all aspects of the accident, including not only safety issues

but rail track, maintenance and planning considerations? Houses were immediately adjacent to a railway embankment and were therefore at very considerable risk.

Mr. Watts: First, I should like to extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents, particularly to the relatives of the postal worker who died in the crash. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend Secretary of State has asked the Health and Safety Commission to ask the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an independent investigation, to prepare a special report and for the report to be made public as soon as possible. In the meantime, Railtrack, the train operator and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate are carrying out technical investigations to see whether there are any immediate lessons to be learnt.

Mr. Chidgey: Does the Minister recall the derailment outside Euston station on 14 December last year, which led to widespread disruption and delay to train services? Will he tell the House why, despite earlier warnings from contractors about dangerous conditions on the track, Railtrack failed to take any action to prevent that accident, bearing it in mind that such negligent inaction by British Rail would have led automatically to dismissal of the staff concerned?

Mr. Watts: Railtrack already had plans for work on the track in the vicinity of Euston. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Health and Safety Executive issued an improvement notice—not a prohibition or closure notice—giving Railtrack a year to bring the track up to standard. There is no question that safety will be compromised.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister give the House further details of the new investment in signalling equipment? Is not that investment very important and long overdue, and how long will it take to come into effect?

Mr. Watts: It is difficult to be precise about how long development of the new signalling system will take. The contract will be let later this month, which will add significantly to the line's capacity and provide inbuilt automatic train protection. In parallel with that development work, Railtrack will undertake a large investment programme in track and power supplies.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister knows that less than a fortnight ago the Health and Safety Executive issued a notice in relation to that particular area of the west coast main line, making it very clear that urgent and necessary work was required. It is a miracle that more Post Office workers did not lose their lives. Is it not clear from Railtrack's immediate response, which sought to give an instant diagnosis of the problem, that privatisation has fragmented companies and that, instead of improving safety for passengers, we have argument, disputation and real dangers to everyone using the system?

Mr. Watts: With regard to fragmentation, the hon. Lady knows that there will be a single rail network in the ownership and operation of Railtrack. I think that she and other hon. Members would be unwise to speculate on the causes of the accident.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Railtrack did.

Mr. Watts: The preliminary information from Railtrack's investigation team is that there is not yet any evidence of track defect, vandalism or signalling irregularity. The hon. Lady should be willing, as I am, to await the outcome of the independent investigation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Health and Safety Executive to carry out.

Ms Short: I am sure that the Minister would not mean to mislead the House. Does he agree that the improvement notice issued by the Health and Safety Executive to Railtrack about the incident at Euston is unprecedented and that an order of that kind was never necessary to make British Rail comply with safety conditions? Will the Minister confirm that the recent health and safety report on Railtrack was very critical indeed? Is he not concerned that Railtrack is so incompetent that it cannot give safety certificates for £450 million-worth of rolling stock that has already been bought but which is lying idle? Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is disgraceful that Railtrack should seek to absolve itself of responsibility for the terrible accident at Stafford before there has been an inquiry? Given all of that, does the Minister agree that it would be absolutely wrong to allow Railtrack to be floated before its safety standards have been sorted out?

Mr. Watts: No. The picture that the hon. Lady tries to paint is completely false. The HSE said that there is no decline in overall health and safety standards. Indeed, in terms of significant train accidents on the network, there was a fall of eight last year—to 110, with 32 fatalities, excluding trespassers and suicides, which is the lowest level ever. The true picture is quite different from that which the hon. Lady tries misleadingly to paint whenever she appears on television.

Motorway Repairs

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken. [17997]

Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend receives representations from a range of individuals and organisations about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? Does he agree that hold-ups caused by motorway repairs are very costly to industry? Has he any proposals to speed things up?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right in that we can never be satisfied with the performance. The lane rental system has been introduced for virtually all major maintenance contracts and lane rental contracts are completed on average 30 per cent. faster than conventional contracts. As for the cost of delays, the use of lane rental has so far saved more than 5,000 days of disruption at an estimated saving of £120 million in road user costs since it was introduced in 1984.

Oil Pollution

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress to clear up oil deposits. [17998]

Sir George Young: I share the concern of people along the coast about the oil spilt when the tanker Sea Empress grounded at the entrance to Milford Haven. I am anxious that the beautiful and environmentally sensitive coastline should be quickly restored. Very good progress is being made with the clean-up. At sea, recovery of oil is effectively completed, and I expect that the work on the shoreline will be substantially completed by Easter.

Mr. Banks: We must not allow the public spotlight to move away from what looks like being perhaps the worst ecological disaster since the Torrey Canyon—[Interruption.] I think that "Tory" Canyon was the right pronunciation. Someone needs to swing for the current disaster. It cannot be acceptable for everyone to say, "It was nobody's fault." We want someone's head on a plate—or at least I do. Will the Secretary of State assure us that sufficient resources are still being made available for the clean-up operations and that the compensation fund is not likely to be exhausted? Can he give us any up-to-date figure for the extent of sea bird mortality in the area and also the number of sea mammals to have suffered as a result of the Sea Empress disaster?

Sir George Young: The Torrey Canyon disaster took place under a Labour Government, and the then Prime Minister ordered that the ship be bombed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have made considerable progress in dealing with such accidents since then.
With regard to the recent accident, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have established no fewer than three inquiries to find out exactly what went wrong. The inquiries will be independent and their findings will be published. There has been no shortage of resources for the clean-up process. I pay tribute to all the people involved in that process, both at sea and on the beaches, many of whom worked long hours in darkness doing a messy and uncomfortable task. I understand that the funds available will be more than adequate to meet compensation claims.
On the hon. Gentleman's last question, more than 2,500 dead birds have been recovered. More than 3,000 live birds have been recovered and are being cleaned up before release. A count of mammals conducted on Skomer Island 10 days ago showed about 80 oiled seals—three to five badly oiled, 40 moderately oiled and the rest lightly oiled.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that oil deposits are constantly being caused around our coastline—including the North Yorkshire coast, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has one of its best sanctuaries, at Bempton cliffs in my constituency—by tankers and other ships sluicing out oil into the North sea and other waters, and that there is evidence that the practice has been increasing in recent months? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that that disgusting practice is stopped?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, day in and day out, an unacceptable amount of damage is caused by ships cleaning out their tanks. I assure him that my Department devotes substantial resources to detecting, where possible, the offenders and prosecuting them. We shall soon be publishing a draft Bill implementing a number of the Donaldson recommendations which require legislation. Some of those will deal with port waste facilities.

Mr. Ainger: Throughout Question Time today, the Secretary of State has referred to his inquiry as independent, but that is not the view taken in my constituency, in the rest of Wales and by many people throughout this country. Will he confirm that the terms of reference that he has given his so-called independent inquiry, to be undertaken by the marine accident investigation branch, makes no mention of the availability of salvage tugs, of the Donaldson inquiry recommendations, of the issue of single hulls versus double hulls, of the safety of port operations generally in and around Milford Haven, or of the need to examine current salvage law? As the MAIB inquiry is not comprehensive and its two-page interim report published only last Thursday contained five factual mistakes, does he now accept that much more information has emerged since his last statement to the House on this matter and that we need a full and independent inquiry, ideally under Lord Donaldson? As a major ecological disaster has taken place, will the Minister explain why we had an independent inquiry into the Braer and not into the Sea Empress?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The MAIB inquiry into the Braer accident was exactly the same as the one that we have established into this one. The Donaldson report was not an inquiry into the Braer accident, but a wide-ranging look at a range of issues dealing with marine pollution and safety at sea.
I made it absolutely clear in my recent statement to the House that the inquiry will cover a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in the first part of his question. For example, it will cover whether enough tugs were available. It will also cover whether it would have made any difference if the Sea Empress had been a double-hulled rather than a single-hulled vessel. He should not therefore imply that the MAIB is not independent or that it will not consider certain specific issues when I have made it absolutely clear to the House that it will. Nor should he undermine the MAIB's independent status as it publishes its reports without fear or favour and has criticised my Department in the past.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties to deal with those who jettison oil upon the seas are sufficiently strong, and is such behaviour being policed enough?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to again draw attention to that matter. It is often quite difficult, having discovered the oil, to trace the vessel responsible for depositing it. Where possible, we shall track it down and take people to court. Substantial penalties are available against those who offend in this anti-social way.

Mr. Llwyd: In his answers about Milford Haven, the Secretary of State has been most complacent. I might save him some time in the context of the forthcoming inquiry by telling him that the Coastguard Agency advised that a heavy-duty salvage tug was available in west Wales for two days in December and for one day in January. The disaster happened in February and, to the best of my knowledge, a tug was not available. Is not it about time that the Government, if they really do learn from reports, implemented their recommendations?

Sir George Young: Of course if we establish inquiries we should take note of recommendations. I have announced that, of the 103 Donaldson recommendations, we have accepted 86. Since I made that announcement we have accepted a further five. Some of those that we are not taking forward immediately require international agreement and we have to reach that through the International Maritime Organisation. Others require legislation, and I shall soon publish a draft Bill that will take forward some recommendations that require legislation.

Public Transport Works (Compensation)

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the rules covering compensation following railway, underground and other public transport works. [17999]

Mr. Norris: We have no plans to review part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, under which compensation is payable upon completion of public works.

Mr. Hughes: That is the answer that I feared. May I try to persuade the Minister to look again at two issues which colleagues have raised in relation to the channel tunnel rail link? My concerns relate to the Jubilee line and its consequences. First, if a business is adversely affected and the property is taken or partly taken, could we guarantee that the owner is put back into no worse a position than he would have been in if the works had not taken place? Secondly, in relation to public legislation or public works—railways or an underground system—the rules state that if a building is physically touched, compensation is payable. However, if the building is not touched, although there may be a huge hole a yard from the front door so that for years no one can find the door, let alone use it, compensation is not payable. Will the Minister look at the illogicality of the division between a building being physically affected and the clear effect on work, profit and viability of all the other consequences of the works?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is being assiduous in prosecuting the interests of his constituents, particularly those in Borough High street, which I know, in relation to the Jubilee line extension. I hope that in all fairness he will understand when I say that I would prefer not to be drawn into negotiations on compensation claims that affect a number of his constituents. On his second point, he is aware that there are substantial provisions to allow for compensation and purchase of affected property where the property is not required for the scheme but is clearly blighted by it. New rules in relation to that were recently published by my Department following the Owen case.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has among his constituents some shopkeepers and property owners who are finding it difficult to establish a link between the loss that they suffer and the statutory compensation that is available. I stress that that will always be a difficult area. Limitless compensation for blight or perceived blight in relation to any public sector works would put most of them beyond the purse or reach of the taxpayer or of the Government.

Dr. Twinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a link between planning delays and the lack of compensation or levels of compensation? If the Government relaxed their rules and looked at the French system of compensation, they might get much more public sympathy for public investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend, whose constituency contains the north circular road, knows that the average time between a good idea and that idea being rolled out as a piece of tarmac is 13 and a half years, of which 11 and a half are spent in the planning and public inquiry process. I have heard it suggested that we should adopt more generous compensation methods to truncate those inquiries. I hope that he will appreciate that that is a potentially extremely expensive course of action. In general, our compensation scheme attempts to put people who are affected in the same position as they would have been had the scheme not taken place. That involves negotiation, and on occasions, leads to delay. My hon. Friend's alternative, seductive as it may be in its simplicity, would in practice be a very expensive option.

Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the length of time that the rules of compensation have been in effect, does the Minister not think that it is time for a review, especially with regard to motorway and highway planning, for which the full information on pollution emissions is not being made available? If we are to have a proper and fair system of compensation, all information should be made available and the rules on compensation for blight should be updated through a review.

Mr. Norris: Following recent action in the Court of Appeal, we issued new guidelines on compensation precisely to try to relate more sympathetically to the position of property owners, especially with regard to discretionary purchase. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this is a very difficult area. Inevitably, if one considers all the cases where there may be some blight, a line has to be drawn and some people who are affected by schemes fall outside it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I would of course be very happy to look at them.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it not totally unsatisfactory that claimants against Stansted airport in my constituency are having to wait about four years, if not longer, before a settlement figure is reached? Is it not totally indefensible that the British Airports Authority should take upwards of four months after a settlement has been agreed to pay compensation? Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to look at the matter?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous on behalf of his constituents who have been affected by noise at Stansted. He has made his own point in his own way. I am sure that the BAA will want to reflect on what he has said.

Trans-European Transport Networks

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet his European Union counterparts to discuss trans-European transport networks. [18000]

Mr. Watts: My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping is deputising for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at a meeting of the Council of Ministers today, at which the transport networks will be discussed.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply. As part of his brief, is he putting forward proposals for a technical study on the electrification of the trans-European network railway line between London and south Wales that goes on to Ireland? If that is so, will further funding be made available for the electrification of that line?

Mr. Watts: The railway line from London to south Wales is already a high-speed line. As part of our TEN bid for the coming year, we are bidding for funding for a feasibility study on the upgrading of the Great Western lines to the south-west.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take a trip round the motorways of France to see how empty they are simply because of high tolls? Does he agree that the most environmentally friendly method of moving traffic is along free motorways?

Mr. Watts: The free movement of traffic on motorways is certainly convenient for road users and can greatly reduce the pollution caused by the same traffic moving slowly on congested and less suitable roads.

Marine Pollution

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the ability of Government agencies to respond to marine pollution incidents. [18001]

Sir George Young: The Coastguard Agency's marine pollution control unit is the Government's lead body for responding to pollution incidents. The MPCU is a long-established and internationally respected unit with specific responsibilities for operations to deal with pollution at sea from ships. The unit maintains the national contingency plan, which co-ordinates the response of the other central and local government bodies involved. It has stockpiles of equipment and is ready to initiate immediate response operations anywhere around the United Kingdom coast in the event of a spill.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the accident to the Sea Empress caused 250 tonnes of oil to spill into the sea, but the salvage operation over the next week caused 70,000 tonnes of oil to be spilled? Will he respond to the letter that he recently received from the National


Trust, which listed 33 other organisations that are calling for an independent public inquiry into the accident? Will he listen to those demands, or have the Government something to hide?

Sir George Young: The Government have nothing to hide, which is why we have set up an independent inquiry. Of course I shall respond to the National Trust. The hon. Gentleman referred to requests for a full public inquiry, but that would involve legal representation of parties and lengthy adversarial public hearings and it would be extremely time-consuming. My priority is to find out, as quickly as possible, what went wrong, to establish the cause of the accident and to learn any relevant lessons. That is best done by an expert, independent investigation following the usual procedures set up by Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Child Care Voucher Scheme

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of the staff child care voucher scheme in the current financial year to date. [18022]

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The expenditure on the child care voucher scheme since its inception on 1 April 1995 to date is £45,109.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he concede that while it must be of some assistance to people to use the voucher scheme to put their children in nurseries near to their homes, is not it time that the Commission examined the likely cost and feasibility of running a proper nursery in this building, so that the children of staff and Members can be looked after in a place of safety within the building—thus bringing us up to date with the 20th century before it has passed us by? Any other large institution would have workplace child care facilities, such as a nursery. This building has absolutely nothing.

Mr. Beith: The Commission has examined that possibility and the House has debated it. I take it that since the last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me a question on that matter, he has not persuaded the Administration and Accommodation Committees, from which the Commission takes advice, that progress can be made on such a scheme.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that hon. Members may issue child care vouchers to their own staff, to be debited against their office cost allowance? Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of a number of hon. Members on this issue, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many do so?

Mr. Beith: Hon. Members may do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but establishing how many do so would require a question of the Leader of the House.

Jopling Reforms

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the

House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of implementing the Jopling reforms. [18023]

Mr. Beith: There have been both direct costs and direct savings for the House's votes arising from the implementation of the Jopling reforms. There have been extra reporting and security costs because total sitting hours have actually increased, but with fewer sittings of the House continuing after 10.30 pm there have been savings in overtime, night allowances and late-night transport. The net effect so far has been an estimated reduction in costs of some £80,000.

Mr. Greenway: Have the staff responded happily to the more social hours that they are now enjoying? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any more could be done to implement the Jopling reforms with a view to making life more acceptable to lady Members as well as gentlemen Members, in the way demanded in discussions outside the House?

Mr. Beith: As an individual Member, I should like more of the Jopling reforms to be carried out. However, the Commission's job is to make provision for the decisions that the House has made. As far as I am aware, the staff continue to work well and effectively in support of the arrangements, although the Commission has not canvassed opinion on whether they prefer them to the previous arrangements.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that against the financial savings must be weighed the very real fact that the increase in hours is entirely in debates where votes cannot be taken? Back-Bench Members have actually lost an advantage that they had previously, namely, that votes could be taken on Fridays—which is not now possible on the Adjournment debates. Although there is undoubtedly some positive benefit from the reforms, it is important that the House does not lose sight of the reason why we are here, which—saving the right hon. Gentleman's grace—is not to save money for his Commission, but to do a job for our constituents.

Mr. Beith: All those points were raised in the debates on the reforms. As far as I am aware, the reforms were not influenced by considerations of whether they would save money or not save money. The relatively complex balance I have just described indicates that it would be hard to argue for the reforms on that basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Marine Pollution

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the role of the salvors in the Sea Empress accident. [18002]

Sir George Young: As I announced in my recent statement, the marine accident investigation branch will examine the detail of the salvage operation as well as the causes of the original accident.

Mr. Dalyell: Can a system possibly be right in which the sole aim of the salvor is to save the ship?

Sir George Young: The system would not be right if that were the way in which it was structured; it is not structured like that. The reward due to the salvor is based on the value of the ship and the cargo that is salved. However, the contract also provides for an additional reward if, by his efforts, the salvor prevents or minimises environmental damage. In that way, the contract encourages the salvor to minimise environmental damage.

Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not yet at all certain that the accident and the disaster would have been averted or lessened if the ship had been double-hulled? Can he confirm that the inquiry will address that question?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is by no means certain that if the ship had been double-hulled, the disaster might have been avoided. He will be interested to learn that during the inquiry, we will simulate the accident to see whether a double hull would have made any difference.

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the recommendations contained in "Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas" have been accepted by his Department; and how many of these are now in practice. [18003]

Sir George Young: The Government accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations in the report when they published their response a year ago. They have since accepted a further five, and are considering another eight; only four have been rejected. Of the accepted recommendations, half have been implemented and action is being taken on all the others.

Dr. Godman: Has the Secretary of State made a definite timetable for the implementation of the recommendations on marine environmental high-risk areas? If he has such a timetable, will he outline the measures that would be taken in such areas to minimise the risk of accidents? He will not be surprised to hear me say that I think that the first such area should be the Minches.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks about recommendation 59 of the Donaldson report that so-called MEHRAs—marine environmental high-risk areas—should be established. We first need to establish whether the existing voluntary arrangements for routing are working. Our survey suggests that they are, but we will consult on the results. We also need to discuss with the EC the proposals for environmentally sensitive areas because international agreement will be needed on the definition of such areas before they can be implemented.

Sir Patrick Cormack: When can we expect to see appropriate tugs in all the appropriate places?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we propose shortly to publish the so-called Belton report, which carried forward the Donaldson recommendations on the priorities for the location of tugs. We have implemented, as my hon. Friend knows, the priority recommendation that tugs should be situated at the Minches and at Dover. The Belton report will shed further light on the succeeding priorities.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the franchising of rail services. [18005]

Mr. Watts: The franchising programme is making good progress. Fourteen of the 25 train operating companies, representing 61 per cent. of passenger revenue in the financial year 1994–95, have either been franchised or are in the process of being sold.

Mr. Bayley: Do the Government still subscribe to the view that rail privatisation will bring increased competition? if so, do they regard it as a failure of policy that Wisconsin Transportation now owns all four freight companies? Is it true that the previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), went to the United States to encourage Wisconsin Transportation to bid for all four companies? What plans do the Government have to prevent private rail operators from taking over one another and creating massive private rail monopolies?

Mr. Watts: Train freight companies are not franchised, which was the point of the hon. Gentleman's original question, but sold. With his wide knowledge of transport, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Railfreight has plenty of competitors, notably from the road haulage industry, and it was the verdict of the market that Railfreight would be stronger with the three companies in common ownership, because that view was reflected in all of the bids.

Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in my constituency that the public service obligations required of bidders for the Chiltern franchise are not compatible with the proposed freight service sought by Central Railways Ltd.? Will he therefore issue clear guidance so that bidders for the Chiltern franchise and the customers who value the Chiltern passenger service know exactly where they stand?

Mr. Watts: No subsequent proposal can pose any threat to the continuation of passenger services, which are protected and guaranteed for the first time by passenger service requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ministerial Accountability

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Lord President of the Council what procedural measures he proposes to increase the accountability of Ministers to the House. [18024]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government will contribute to the Public Service Committee's examination of ministerial accountability in


the light of the Scott report. Sir Richard made no specific recommendations about the procedural arrangements of the House, but I am always ready to consider suggestions on procedural matters from hon. Members or from the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Bayley: In response to the Scott report, the Government claimed, ad nauseam, that Ministers had not knowingly misled Parliament, but the word "knowingly" was added to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" only in July last year. Was it simply added to provide an alibi for the Government in the knowledge that the Scott report was coming? Will the Leader of the House consider removing the word from "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" so that Ministers who transgress must do what Lord Carrington more honourably did after the outbreak of hostilities in the south Atlantic, and resign?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be attempting to rerun a substantial debate that we have already had. If the Public Service Committee wishes to raise such points, no doubt they will be considered, but I find it a bit difficult to see why something that is done unknowingly should incur the wrath that the hon. Gentleman would like to bestow on it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Friday sittings? Non-sitting Fridays deny Back-Bench Members of Parliament a valuable opportunity to table a private notice question. They also deny Ministers what can be a valuable opportunity to make a ministerial statement at 11 am on a matter quite unforeseen and of great national importance.

Mr. Newton: My general view is that the House collectively feels that the changes that were made following the Jopling report have been working rather well—including those that come up in a later question—and have given considerably increased opportunities to Back-Bench Members. I have no plans for a change at present.

Mr. Spearing: Would not the accountability of Ministers be improved if the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—in a later question on the Order Paper—for a Question Time on European Union matters were adopted? Would it not also be entirely compatible with protocol 13 of the treaty of Maastricht? Would not the Government be in a stronger position in respect of their colleagues in the European Union if they adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend and reverted to the practice before 1979?

Mr. Newton: The question whether there should be a dedicated Question Time on European matters has been looked at once or twice in the past and has not seemed to be a good idea. The Scrutiny Committee, which is currently conducting a further inquiry into the operation

of scrutiny arrangements, might wish to make such a suggestion, although I am not aware at present that it is looking at that.

Adjournment Debates

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many subjects have been raised in Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective in January 1995. [18025]

Mr. Newton: I assume that my hon. Friend is interested in private Members' Adjournment debates. There have been 190 daily and 188 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective. I should add for the sake of completeness that there have also been 41 Government debates on the Adjournment.

Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the success of his reforms, which have confounded the sceptics, increased the amount of time available to private Members and enabled many more topics to be raised than were raised under the previous system?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may utter those kind words. I shall receive them with the pleasure that they deserve.

EU Question Time

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for a specific Question Time for European Union matters. [18029]

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so, in case that was not clear from my earlier answer.

Mr. Banks: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? He said that the practice of allocating a specific time to Common Market questions was scrapped. I believe that that was in 1979, after the election. Why was it scrapped? Surely it is wrong that we should have to rely on the luck of the draw in order to raise European Union issues when clearly Europe is one of the most significant matters, if not the most significant matter that the House is currently discussing. Why cannot we have a change? Is it because the Conservative Government are too embarrassed about answering questions from their own Back Benchers on the European Union?

Mr. Newton: I have some information about the history. I understand that the European Community slot was abolished in 1985, following pressure from some hon. Members and discussions through the usual channels. The matter was then looked at again in 1989, when my predecessor, the official Opposition and the Clerk of the House expressed scepticism about the reinstatement of such a slot.

Points of Order

Mr. Derek Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from a Minister to make a statement? You will be aware that the Government's scheme to privatise the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency was defeated in another place on Friday by 124 votes to 64. You will also be aware that the Prime Minister said, with regard to the privatisation of the Post Office, "We are democrats. If there is no majority, we do not proceed." This House needs a statement from the Government on how they intend to proceed. Are they to abandon the scheme? Are they to report it to a Select Committee? Or are they to bring it to this House for a debate and vote?

Madam Speaker: As far as my authority is concerned, I can answer only the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance. It is an unhappy subject relating to the printing of the embossed notepaper of the House of Commons, which carries the portcullis. It has come to my attention that the proprietor of the firm which prints it—Wilprint of Cardiff—was sent down for corruption for four months just before Christmas and came out in January. The portcullis and all our proceedings have to be seen to be entirely above board and free of even the most indirect taint of corruption. Could you explain to me how I should draw the matter to the attention of the proper authorities so that we can ensure that the portcullis of the House and the notepaper on which we write carry the respect that we always thought they had?

Madam Speaker: I had hoped to call the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Member answering for the House of Commons Commission today, but it was not appropriate. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which is new to me, I shall take it up with the Serjeant at Arms to see what can be done. The hon. Gentleman may also care to put a question to the House of Commons Commission so that we are all aware what the answer is.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If the people of Cardiff do not want the work, there are many fine printers in Harrow who do.

Madam Speaker: We have very good printers in West Bromwich, West, too.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Aggrieved Members are always in a

weak position to raise points of order, but I am fortified by the fact that I was lucky enough, by virtue of the low number of questions to the Commission, to be called today. From that position of strength, may I ask whether it is satisfactory that in 45 minutes we should have had only 10 questions on transport? When I first came here, 25 to 30 questions were got through.

Madam Speaker: I am absolutely delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He is a regular attender in the Chamber and must have heard me many times urging hon. Members to put short questions and Ministers to give brisk answers. We do not proceed through the Order Paper as briskly and effectively as I would like. I keep records every day of how far we proceed and every few months, I give them to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in the hope that they will urge Ministers and Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to proceed more efficiently at Question Time. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which enables me once again to urge all hon. Members and Ministers to deal more briskly with questions.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You referred to regular attendance. Do you think that the thin attendance in the Chamber outside of Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday—there were fewer than 40 Back Benchers present for questions today—is linked with the fact that the media have stopped reporting the House? Is it not unfortunate that the heart of our parliamentary democracy is not being reported by the serious press?

Madam Speaker: Are we having a question-and-answer session? I have lots of views about why the serious press does not report the House as I think that it should, but this is not the appropriate time for me to express them. The time may come when I can do so and then I will do it very forcefully.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How times change. I was reading in the Library the other day that on 29 February 1968,. Members started on a Thursday with overseas aid and got to Question 33. That was followed by the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who answered Eric Heffer twice—Questions 4 and 5. At that time, the press reported everything that went on in the House. I think that there is a law that says that the press reports in inverse proportion to the number of questions asked in the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: I remember a time in the House when Members did not put supplementary questions. That dates me.

ESTIMATES DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1995–96

Class XIII, Vote 4

Department of Social Security

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on the Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382); the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3148); and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm. 2813).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, for which we thank the Liaison Committee and partly also the Department, whose supplementary estimate is such that it will allow hon. Members to speak on any aspect of its work and remain in order. I spent some time trying to think of an aspect of the Department's work that would be out of order, but I could not think of one. Perhaps other hon. Members will be more effective than me in that respect.
In opening the debate, I shall concentrate on one topic to which we gave some prominence in our fifth report on the work of the Department and its agencies and which we debated in the House last week, debated in Committee and have another opportunity to debate today—fraud. I wish to take the debate on and suggest some changes in its nuances that I believe are important not only for the House but for the taxpayers—those who are in work and who contribute £15 every day from their pay towards underwriting the social security budget.
First, I emphasise the importance of housing benefit fraud committed by landlords rather than that committed by claimants. Those who have heard me speak before know that I think fraud is wrong full stop, but as any Administration will have limited resources to combat fraud, it is sensible to deploy the resources in those areas where it is most prevalent. I fear that there may have been a difference in emphasis between the Select Committee on Social Security and the Secretary of State on that. When we questioned him on that aspect on Wednesday, we talked about evidence of landlord fraud and he said to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), "Not evidence—assertions".
I was referring to the evidence that the London borough of Haringey has put together. It has carried out a survey of landlords who have more than 30 claims paid direct to

them every week. On the first 15 cases, the borough has carried out 1,300 visits so far—that is one borough, for a survey that is, so far, incomplete. That contrasts vividly with the Government's survey of housing benefit fraud, which they carried out throughout the country and which covered 4,500 claims. I am talking not about 4,500 investigations, but about 4,500 claimants, who were asked about their claims. If they could remember accurately what they had said when they first claimed benefit, no further investigations were undertaken.
Although the Government publicised that as a fraud survey, it was slightly misleading to the House and to those outside to do so because they were testing people's memories. I have a bad memory and would probably have failed to answer the questions correctly. I would not be able to remember what I said when I originally made a claim, which might have spurred the Government into further action by suggesting that there was fraud. The Government undertook, not a fraud inquiry, but a test of memory.
Let us consider the Haringey inquiry about which the Secretary of State was somewhat dismissive in the Select Committee. It was not carrying out a memory test. It has called at properties to question landlords and claimants where a landlord has more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to him in any one week. The council checked the national insurance number of each claimant and asked for further evidence from utility bills. It also checked in other boroughs whether double claims were being made and studied council tax payments.
For this debate, I asked Haringey to give us information on the first 15 landlords on which it called. I emphasise that those were landlords who had more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to them each week. I asked Haringey what the fraud rate was. Obviously, I will not read out the names of the landlords concerned or their agents as that would be unfair. I will refer to them by number.
The first landlord called on as part of the survey had 112 housing benefit claims paid direct to him each week—more than £13,000 was paid direct to that landlord in housing benefit—and 25 per cent. were shown by the Haringey anti-fraud inquiry to be fraudulent. The second landlord had 111 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling more than £13,000 of public money, and the fraud rate was 23 per cent. The third landlord had only 39 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling almost £3,000 a week of public money, and the fraud rate was 67 per cent.
The fourth landlord had 46 direct payments made to him every week, totalling some £4,000, and 26 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The fifth landlord had 111 claims directly paid to him or her every week, totalling some £11,000, and 16 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The sixth landlord had 121 direct payments made to him every week, totalling almost £8,000 from public funds, and 15 per cent. were shown to be fraudulently claimed. The seventh landlord had 141 claims paid directly to him or her every week, totalling almost £9,000 from public funds, and 11 per cent. were fraudulently claimed.
The eighth landlord had 42 claims paid directly, totalling almost £8,000 a week, and 33 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The ninth landlord had 112 claims paid directly, totalling almost £11,000 a



week, and 59 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The 10th landlord had 69 claims paid directly each week, totalling more than £6,000 of public funds, and 29 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The 11 th landlord had 58 claims paid directly to him or her a week, totalling more than £7,000, and 15 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent.
The 12th landlord had 100 direct housing payments paid to him each week, totalling almost £17,000, and 10 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The 13th landlord had 192 housing benefit claims paid directly to him a week, totalling £19,000, and 14 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The 14th landlord had 46 direct payments paid each week, totalling £4,000, and the fraud rate was 42 per cent. The 15th landlord had 62 direct claims paid each week, totalling more than £9,000 of public funds, and the fraud rate was more than 16 per cent.
I have put those cases on the record, without naming the landlords or their agents, because I want to support the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who is also a member of the Select Committee on Social Security. When he raised this question with the Secretary of State for Social Security, he was slightly terse with him and said that it was not evidence but assertions. The survey was conducted in Haringey—which happens to be a Labour authority, but would be matched by Westminster. Westminster is equally effective against fraud and it is carrying out a survey of all landlords who have more than 30 claims in housing benefits paid directly to them each week.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): For the record, my remark about assertions did not relate to the Haringey survey—which sounds extremely interesting. My only remark about the survey was that it involved 15 landlords and, obviously, we will investigate it and study the findings. We have absolutely no vested interest in understating the level of fraud. We are simply here to detect fraud, and to prevent and to deter it in the future. As such, we are at one with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security.

Mr. Field: I have no wish to score points, to be accused by hon. Friends who serve on the Committee of being vicious in the debate or even to be welcomed as crossing the Floor by my own side, as happened in our previous debate. I merely wish to place the evidence on record.
The Secretary of State made a very important contribution to our Select Committee hearing. He said that anti-fraud officers see fraud everywhere—I wish that that were true of all anti-fraud officers, but let us take that statement as being true—and that the important implication of that is that those people should be in the driving seat when we design programmes to combat fraud. He said that they know more about the subject than us and even some officers in the Department, because they are up against it every day. I shall return to that.
It is correct that I have cited only 15 of the 16 cases of which the Secretary of State has heard, and Haringey's survey will be a total survey of all those larger landlords in Haringey, but 1,300 visits have already been made in that borough. That contrasts with a national survey of only 4,500 inquiries by the Department.
I emphasised that in the Haringey survey, national insurance records, utility bills and council tax payment records have been checked and checks have been made with other boroughs, to verify whether claimants exist or are a creation of the landlord. That is a very different exercise from the memory test, which is what I suggest that the Secretary of State was undertaking when he inquired into housing benefit fraud.
I do not oppose memory tests. I merely suggest—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), will consider this argument when he replies, or at least convey it to the Department—that the type of inquiry that Haringey has conducted needs to be done throughout the country, so that we do not test claimants' memories but examine what landlords are doing.
Some landlords draw very substantial sums from public funds. They are in a unique position, because they receive a large benefit now, which, even if it is not paid directly into their bank account, goes into their bank account. Every other benefit that the Secretary of State for Social Security pays on the taxpayer's behalf goes to claimants for them to spend. This is a direct transfer payment to a specific group, so it is a very special group. Therefore, a survey similar to the work that Haringey has done should be conducted for the entire country.
Had Westminster, not Haringey, been mentioned in the Select Committee, I would have telephoned Westminster city council and asked for equivalent information to that which Haringey has given us. Both authorities are outstanding in London in combating fraud.

Mr. Tim Smith: On the basis of the sample that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will he estimate housing benefit fraud throughout the country? Is that fraud perpetrated only by the landlord, or is there a conspiracy between landlord and tenant?

Mr. Field: I am doubly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention because it gives me the opportunity to make it clear that I am not suggesting that fraud is a one-way traffic, undertaken only by landlords. I am saying that it is important that the limited resources that at any one time the Treasury will allow the Department to have to counter fraud are deployed as effectively as possible and that, if we are interested in reducing the social security budget, especially the part boosted by fraud, our efforts should primarily go into areas where the gains will be quickest and biggest; and I am suggesting that the biggest gains would be from landlords. It is difficult for claimants to run a housing benefit fraud racket for any length of time. That is not to say that some of us do not have clever constituents who manage to do that, but it is difficult to do so without the landlord's help. Haringey is finding that many of the tenants whom it checks up on do not exist: they are fictitious tenants created by the landlord or previous tenants who have been recycled by the landlord.
That issue takes me neatly on to my second point. I gained a mere inference from what the Secretary of State said during our discussions last Wednesday that concerned me. I questioned the extent of child benefit fraud.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of housing benefit, I wish to make a further point. He will recall that during the interview that we had with the Secretary of State last Wednesday, I asked a question about the public spending consequences of the deregulation of rents. Typically, a former council-owned property could be rented for £150 a week in London, whereas the council rent would be about £50 a week, both of which rents might well be paid with housing benefit. The Secretary of State seemed unconcerned by that and unwilling to examine the public spending consequences of rent deregulation. Would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State seriously to consider that issue? The public purse seems to be creating a large number of millionaire landlords through a process of rent deregulation and the open-ended payment of benefit for whatever rent the landlords choose to set in areas of great poverty and high levels of housing benefit.

Mr. Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making his point again in today's debate. I look forward to the Secretary of State rising at the Dispatch Box and shall be happy to give way to him. I also noticed that, when the Secretary of State was replying to my hon. Friend, he raised the important consideration of whether there could be any meaningful market rents in areas where the amount of rented housing stock was still so dependent on one landlord—the public sector. The public owner—the public landlord—could fix the market rate in the area and, by so doing, could determine the extent to which taxpayers would have to foot an increasingly large part of that bill.
Both my hon. Friend's question and the Secretary of State's response to it were intriguing. We did not receive an answer to that question in the Select Committee and have not yet done so today—perhaps the Secretary of State will respond to that question later. If the monopoly landlord is allowed to set the market rent in his area, the Government, and therefore taxpayers, seem to be over a barrel because we taxpayers have to foot the bill.

Mr. David Winnick: If what my hon. Friend has said is true—all the evidence sent to him shows that a number of landlords are doing their best to swindle money out of the public purse—what confidence can we have that landlords in the private sector will not swindle their tenants? Does that not demonstrate how right many of us are when we say that people should not be subjected to private landlords when they have no choice? When people cannot buy and cannot obtain local authority accommodation, they are forced to become tenants of landlords such as those whom my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Field: It is intolerable for our constituents to be in a market where they have no choice because there is only a limited supply of private rented accommodation. If the market was working well, the choice would be greater and the pressures of the market would be applied against the landlords. As my hon. Friend says, our constituents often face Hobson's choice and the more vulnerable they are, the more likely they are to be subjected to that form of aggression by landlords.
I suspect that many hon. Members read the survey in The Sunday Times of housing benefit millionaires—landlords who are in such profitable areas that they draw more than £1 million a year in housing benefit. The survey showed that the treatment of many tenants who existed was undesirable, while other tenants for whom claims had been made did not exist. When pressed to identify the accommodation to which certain claims related, landlords specified, for example, the space under a sink and part of a garage. We should have no illusions about landlords who, up to now, have been able to make easy pickings from the public purse.
As the Select Committee has pointed out, if we are to deal with fraud, we should do so where the gains will be easiest. I do not suggest that fraud of other kinds does not take place—indeed, we may have time to discuss some aspects today—but, for the moment, I wish to concentrate on landlord fraud.
Before that bevy of interventions, I was saying that more child benefit fraud may take place than the Department would like to think. I asked Haringey council whether it had carried out any surveys in relation to fictitious children. As the council is not responsible for the administration of such matters, it had conducted no surveys on child benefit fraud as such, but it checked whether landlords whom it was investigating had included children in their claims for housing benefit. Where children were included, it investigated whether they attended schools and had health records, and whether child benefit was being claimed.
The results of that investigation were staggering. More than 50 per cent. of the children for whom one landlord was claiming housing benefit were found not to exist, and a substantial number of such children in general did not exist. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) is concerned about women from other European Community countries who come here in the late stages of pregnancy, register the birth of their children here, disappear back to their own countries and then claim child benefit for the next 18 years. That may happen more than the Secretary of State thinks, and it may involve people from outside the European Community as well. We should concentrate anti-fraud campaigns on where fraud is greatest.
After listening to the Secretary of State's speech, I feared that the Department might be rather more interested in the photo-opportunities provided by the local spot checks of which he spoke than in any other aspect, and that the whole campaign might be merely a lead-up to the general election. It would be advantageous for one party to concentrate on claimants, and for the other to concentrate on landlords. I hope that we shall achieve a proper balance in future surveys, and will pay most attention to how we can retrieve the most money for taxpayers when wrongful claims are made.
I have managed to cover quite a few of the topics with which I wanted to deal, but my contribution would not be complete if I did not refer to national insurance numbers. Up to now, the emphasis in debates in the Chamber and in Committee has been on whether the right number of national insurance numbers are being issued. I do not for one moment disagree with the need to make the system secure, but I should like to suggest to the Government a rather different tack on how to accomplish it. My comments are based on events that occurred last Friday: the first happened in my surgery, and the second


is from the experience of an anti-fraud officer in London. Neither event relates to whether there are 3 million or 10 million extra numbers floating around the system, but each emphasises how easy it is for national insurance numbers to be used by people other than those to whom they were allocated in the first place.
The anti-fraud officer, while looking for other information on a computer file, found a person's surname with two addresses listed for it, and the two addresses showed two national insurance numbers for the same name. The date of birth was the same for each of the names. The anti-fraud officer came across that information by accident, which suggests—leaving aside the issue of how many spare numbers are floating around the system—that the Government have yet to perform a data-matching exercise on the information that they have. If they had performed such an exercise, that piece of information would have been spat out and made available immediately.
The other example concerns a person who came to my surgery on Friday. He was not my constituent, but the constituent of my right hon. Friend—I rightly call him that—the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). The constituent had been in employment all his life. He had one short period of self-employment because he lost his job, although he is now again working for an employer. He phoned the Contributions Agency in Newcastle because he wanted to pay, I believe, his class V contributions, which are made by self-employed people. He was asked to hold while his file was pulled up. He was then told, "You don't owe any money; you're in prison." He said, "I'm not in prison. I want to pay. I've been self-employed."
The man clearly did not realise the significance of the information he was giving me. It suggested that his national insurance number had been used—for how long we do not know—by someone else who had then been imprisoned. His national insurance contribution had been credited while the other person was in prison so that, when he called wishing to make his contributions to the fund for the period in which he was self-employed, he found that his contribution was complete.
A number of people, particularly anti-fraud officers, have suggested that "piggybacking" is much more substantial than we think. The Government, therefore, have a dual task. The first task will be to achieve a secure national system, which will take longer and will be very difficult because of the state of the numbers game, if I can call it that. In such a system, social security numbers should relate only to real people, and numbers that are spare because people die or stop making contributions should be held securely.
The stage beyond that is to decide how we make sure that people do not misuse the system, even if we could secure the safety of the current system of numbers. I previously suggested to the Secretary of State that, just as we are now going to receive notification of our pension contributions each year—what we have paid and what the charges are if we have a personal pension—should not we also be thinking about issuing a national insurance statement each year, showing what we have paid and what benefits we have received?
If we had such a statement, every incident of piggybacking would be reported to the genuine national insurance number holder, and the constituent whom I met on Friday would have received a statement informing him that he was registered as being in prison. It would have been clear that his number had been misused. We hope that his number is not still being used by the person in prison, but we do not know whether the prisoner's family is putting the number to good use.
A simple check would ensure that everyone knew whether his number was being used safely. If statements were issued randomly—not at the end of the financial year—someone involved in piggybacking would not necessarily know when a number's true holder was receiving his statement. We should therefore increase the chances of those misusing other people's numbers being caught.
The purpose of my contribution to today's debate—I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me—is to try to change once again the emphasis of the Government's campaign against fraud. I am pleased that the Government have pushed the issue up the agenda and would like to think that the Select Committee has played a small part in concentrating the Department's mind on the importance of the problem. I hope that today's debate might also play a small part in changing the emphasis of the Government's follow-up to the initiative that they announced to the House last week.

Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, and all the members of the Committee on their work. In many ways, the Select Committee on Social Security is a model Select Committee. It oversees the Department of Social Security's work thoroughly and conscientiously. I have read the Committee's fifth report, entitled "The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies", and believe that it is an excellent report.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Birkenhead had to say about housing benefit fraud. If one grosses up the percentages that he mentioned—the examples of fraud that he cited varied from 15 per cent. to 67 per cent.—it would appear that the average fraud is around 30 per cent. If the level of housing benefit fraud is anywhere near that figure, there are substantial gains to be made from devoting resources to dealing with that aspect of fraud.
I agree that it is right to devote a finite amount of resources to aspects of social security likely to produce the greatest rewards. Clearly, we should consider landlords claiming large sums every week. The hon. Gentleman cited the case of one landlord who was receiving £19,000 a week in housing benefit, or £1 million a year. That is a substantial sum of taxpayers' money, by any measure. Such cases should be investigated as a matter of urgency. The House debated benefit fraud last week, and there is no doubt that the extra resources that the Department is rightly devoting to it have yielded substantial results. I believe that extra resources would produce further successes.
I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's idea for an annual statement of contributions for everyone who contributes to the national insurance fund. Last year we


improved considerably the rights of members of private occupational pension schemes. As we are talking about millions of people, a substantial cost would be attached to such a statement, but there must be a case for providing regular information to national insurance contributors. An annual statement could usefully include someone's total contributions in a year, the total benefits that people had drawn in that time if they had had the misfortune to be unemployed or sick, and their prospective benefits, about which people start to worry as they approach retirement. They want to be sure that they have the maximum credits and that they will be able to draw a full pension. They want to know what their entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme will be. A statement on total prospective benefits would also be useful. People would welcome it.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is right that the total cost of the statement might easily be offset by the gains that would be made through exposing fraud. Obviously, that is impossible to measure, but the amount saved could easily cover the statement's cost. It could be a profitable exercise for taxpayers.
I was struck by one item of information revealed by the Select Committee when it investigated the Child Support Agency, as it has on a number of occasions. I think that I am right in saying that, after the first letter was sent to mothers or fathers on income support and they were asked to respond within eight weeks, many of them went off benefit immediately. That was one of the largest gains from the exercise. There has been much debate about the CSA's costs and benefits, but that substantial benefit to the taxpayer was a by-product of the system. It suggests that, if we communicate with beneficiaries regularly and ask them one or two awkward questions, they may quickly disappear off the map.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the question of fraud is even more serious than he suggests. The enormous sums that taxpayers have got back as a result of that first envelope going out are merely the tip of the iceberg, because that does not cover people who are slightly more streetwise and know that the agency's administration is not as we would wish it to be and that, if they merely ignore the letter, the agency probably will not follow it up. I know that the agency would not want to use this language, but it has given an amnesty to parents who, in effect, put two fingers up to taxpayers by not replying to its letters. Those people are slightly more streetwise and know that the agency will never be able to get round to them.
In the first, I think, 18 months, £360 million-worth of books were returned—a substantial sum—but that is a small sum compared with what could be gained if we could only get the agency working effectively, if the amnesty for parents who are refusing to answer questions were withdrawn and if the agency could tackle those people effectively. The gains to taxpayers would be massive.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is here. She piles in questions, the answers to which all put question marks over how well the agency works. The one sector where we never thought the agency would be a

success, where it has turned out to be a major success, but where it could be an even bigger success, is in countering fraud.

Mr. Smith: That suggests that, if additional resources were available to the agency and it was able to follow up some of the people who did not reply to its letters, further huge gains could be made. Some people do not receive letters in the first place. Admittedly, they are nothing to do with the CSA, but the implication must be that, if they were written to from time to time, they too might not claim. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it is hard, by definition, to measure fraud, but the taxpayer would probably gain greatly if more resources were devoted to it.
In its fifth report, the Committee looked at the operation of the executive agencies of the Department of Social Security. The DSS is unusual in that almost all its work is carried out through agencies, which means that almost all the money that it spends is spent through agencies. It is a useful case study, and the Department covers the largest agency, the Benefits Agency. I was interested in a comment on that issue by Sir Michael Partridge, who retired recently from the post of permanent secretary at the DSS.
It has always seemed to me that one of the principal advantages of establishing the executive agency system was that for the first time there would be a clear distinction within the civil service between policy advice and policy execution. In that context, what Sir Michael Partridge told the Committee was interesting. He said:
In the past I used to sit there with these enormous piles of paper … This was a tremendous waste of time. I now have virtually no paper. So my role has changed much more to thinking about the future, getting my staff to run the Department in a proper way and to be much more accountable to me, much more quickly, and to Ministers, for their performance. I feel I have much more handle on what is happening in the Department and what is going wrong, than I did from trying to spend hours and hours looking at minutiae.
Of course, the permanent secretary in any Department, most of whose service delivery is carried out through the agencies, is able to concentrate on policy advice to Ministers, because other people—the chief executives of the agencies, who are also accounting officers—can be held to account by the House and are regularly summoned by Select Committees. That has been a great success, because it has started to change the culture of the civil service.
At one time, those who wanted to get on in the civil service had to be good at advising Ministers—the key was policy advice—and although most of the Department's money was spent on services, delivering them took second place. That has changed a great deal.
In paragraph 75, the Committee reported:
A kind of transfer league is developing in Chief Executives.
That is good, because some people are coming in from outside. An example is Michael Bichard who, I think, was chief executive of Gloucester city council. He is now the permanent secretary in the Department and he got there by first becoming chief executive of the Benefits Agency. At present, there is as much emphasis on policy execution and on being good at making sure that the Government's customers get a good service as there used to be on policy advice. That is a great improvement, and the DSS has led the field in that respect.

Mr. Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought of the irony of a market developing in highly paid chief executives of these agencies, who force market testing down the throats of low-paid employees in their Departments, make large numbers redundant and try to worsen their working conditions? Apparently, incentives are required for chief executives, but sticks are needed for low-paid people, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to the civil service. They feel outraged and alienated because of the way in which they have been treated.

Mr. Smith: Those people do not need to be upset because chief executives are well paid. If good people are wanted, one must pay a reasonable price and compare it with the price paid in the private sector. I agree that a better performance will not be had from an employee by reducing his remuneration or worsening his working conditions. Better performance can be had by adopting the opposite approach—by offering incentives, measuring performance and improving job satisfaction. That is the right way to do it, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The agencies have been a success. For example, a three-year evaluation in the Contributions Agency
concluded that in each year efficiency savings had been exceeded and the milestone targets had been achieved and that 'Agency status has therefore clearly resulted in improved performance. accountability and value for money"'.
That refers to the Contributions Agency, but I would say the same about the Benefits Agency.
The concept of customer service did not operate in the administration of social security benefits in local offices, say, 10 years ago, before the Benefits Agency was established. My local office in High Wycombe, which provides a service to my constituents, has been transformed over that time. A huge effort is made to help and advise people, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. It tries to provide a decent service. The system is complex and there is a range of benefits, but the service has improved.
Some people might say that the improvement is only superficial, but I do not agree. The area that people visit has greatly improved. At one time, people who visited the front office were treated almost as if they were not human beings. They were made to wait for very long periods in appalling conditions.
The whole set-up has become much more customer friendly. That is because—this relates to my point about job satisfaction—there is much more staff training at the Benefits Agency, which is good for staff and customers. As a consequence of staff training, customers are receiving a much better service.

Mr. Frank Field: Although most of us have seen the transformation of our local offices under the agency agreement—provided that we do not represent a London constituency and have found that offices have moved out of the area—does the hon. Gentleman think that the improvement will be such that in the next year or two, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to sign the agency's accounts, given that he has refused them an unqualified audit since income support was introduced?

Mr. Smith: It is a most unsatisfactory matter. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I can certainly say that the Committee is not complacent about

it in the slightest. The necessity for the Comptroller and Auditor General to qualify the audit of any Government Department or executive agency is a matter for concern. It suggests that the agency's record keeping is still unsatisfactory and that there is still room for improvement, which I believe is the case.
Although I was focusing particularly on the way in which the agency deals with its customers, I acknowledge the need for improvement. When the National Audit Office carried out a sample check on the payment of income support, it found an unacceptably high error rate. That suggests that, although there has been much staff training, there is a need for more. There must be better quality outputs. That is what it is all about—measuring output and getting better performance, which at the moment is not good enough. Errors impact both ways—some beneficiaries lose out and some gain. The error rate of the Inland Revenue is not nearly as high as that of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency has scope for further improvement and will have to work over the next few months and years to improve its performance.
One point in the report that interested me was the very important concept of a one-stop shop. When claimants go to a local benefits office, it is normally possible for them to see one officer, who is able to deal with the whole range of benefits. The Committee makes the point that very often such officers will have to deal not only with social security. In fact, that would be rather unusual. Somebody on income support would almost certainly be claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit, and even be dealing with the Inland Revenue—certainly if he had become unemployed in the previous 12 months. He would therefore have to deal with another Government agency.
The idea of trying to bring all those claims together at one advice point is obviously very ambitious. We are talking principally about co-operation between local benefits offices and local councils. Two different council departments would be involved—one dealing with housing benefit and one with council tax benefit. That is something which the Committee should pursue with the Government, to see what further progress can be made.
We all know, from dealing with individual constituents, that there is a bewildering maze of different benefits. To have reached the point where someone can see just one officer in a benefits office is obviously a tremendous step forward. If we could take that further, so that someone could talk to just one person about the whole range of benefits, possibly including even his income tax position, that would be a tremendous step towards helping people with a very complicated matter. Indeed, some of the benefit forms are even more complicated than income tax returns. Of course, no one gives a high priority to completing an income tax return; nor do people enthuse over doing so. The Inland Revenue says that it may be easier when we have self-assessment, but I doubt it. Claiming social security benefits is a difficult process and we should do everything we can to support people in doing so.

Ms Liz Lynne: This is almost a re-run of our debate in the Chamber last week on benefit fraud. Before dealing with some of the issues in the Social Security Select Committee report, I want to refer to the total amount of social security expenditure. It is fashionable for the media and hon. Members to say that


social security is unaffordable. I do not doubt that spending on social security is high. Indeed, the Government estimate that it will be £90 billion for the year 1995–96, which will cost every working person £15 a day. What I want to ask all hon. Members is whether there is a cheaper alternative. Quite honestly, I do not believe that there is.
Any alternative must pass two tests—first, is it cheaper for the Department of Social Security and the Government as a whole, and secondly, is it cheaper for the people of this country? If it does not pass those tests, we shall be passing the buck, because the bill to the family will rise, even though the taxpayer might find things easier. At the end of the week, month or year, the person concerned will have to pay more.
There is a frequently expressed fear about a demographic time bomb, with the country being overrun by senior citizens in a couple of decades. In reality, the growth has already started. A DSS publication says that in 1990, 15 per cent. of the population were over 65. It predicted a slight fall to 14 per cent. in the year 2000 and then a rise to 16 per cent. in 2020. Of course, we must take account of the importance of the number of retired people in society compared with the number of people who are actually working, but even on those figures, the position will not be as bad as some of the predictions suggest. For example, the proportion of pensioners to people of working age in 1990 was 23 per cent. It is predicted that the figure will rise to 26 per cent. in 2020. That is better than the figures for 12 other European Union countries, where the proportion was 21 per cent. in 1990, rising to 29 per cent. in 2020. In other words, the figure for the EU will rise by 8 per cent. compared with a UK rise of 3 per cent.
Although I do not doubt that there are grounds for concern, I do not believe that there are grounds for alarm. Some people in the media are sounding the alarm bells, but before we start slashing spending on social security and disentitling many more people, we must look at the consequences. We must consider whether private provision is any cheaper. It certainly is not cheaper for sickness, for disability or for unemployment. The basic principle of insurance is spreading the risk; no system can spread the risk more widely than the national insurance system.
We must also examine the costs of any cuts in social security benefit to the Government and to the nation. Cuts in housing benefit and income support, for example, may save the Department of Social Security money, but what are the costs to other Departments? There may be costs to the Home Office from increasing crime, and the taxpayers' bill may go up because of homelessness. We should consider the number of homeless people with tuberculosis—200 times more than the national average. If homeless people fall ill, the cost to the national health service is greater. All Departments, especially the Department of Social Security, must look at the knock-on effects on other Departments and at the overall bill for the Government.
I now come to the Select Committee report. If there is a back-to-work strategy for unemployed and lone parents, they must be given advice about their financial position and entitlements. I welcome that, but I believe that we must also help people back into work. The payment of

child care costs is a wise investment for the future. Apart from that, we need far bolder measures, and I do not believe that that point is being addressed.
The Select Committee recommended that, on a trial basis, calls to the War Pensions Agency helpline should be charged at the local rate, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept that. I know that they have said that they will look at the suggestion and that they will consider the cost to the Department of Social Security, but I wish that they would just accept it. The recent reforms of war pensions are not going smoothly—we all know that. War pensioners and war widows need the helpline service, and they need their calls to be charged at the local rate. It is well known that I have never been a great supporter of the Child Support Agency and that I would like it to be scrapped. However, if the CSA can provide that service—anyone who telephones the CSA is charged at the local rate—I do not see why the War Pensions Agency cannot do the same.
I shall not go into detail about benefit fraud and the take-up of benefits, because we had a discussion about that last week. I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations. But anti-fraud activities have to go hand in hand with promoting the take-up of benefits, especially pensions. Some pensioners do not take up their entitlement to income support, which means that they miss the cold weather payments as well. Some 305 pensioners had hypothermia listed on their death certificate in 1994. How many of those pensioners did not get the income support and the cold weather payments to which they were entitled? The situation could get even worse if we do not promote the take-up of income support by pensioners who are supposed to get it.
Ten days ago, it was reported in The Guardian that there would be short-term savings by the Department of Social Security. It was suggested that the Department would remove services that encouraged people to obtain the £2 billion of unclaimed benefits and that there would be cuts in the telephone advice lines. It was also suggested that the Department would end the extension of benefit office opening hours and that it would stop the benefit buses—the buses that go to outlying areas, so that people's queries can be answered in their locality. Will the Minister confirm or deny that those cuts will really take place? If he confirms that they will take place, will he explain the reasoning behind the decision?
Social security spending must be closely monitored. We must fight waste, whether from fraud or from overpayment. As I have said many times, £546 million was overpaid in income support last year, mainly through official error. That must also be addressed when we talk about waste.
I welcome what the Government are doing on benefit fraud, but when it comes to the growth of expenditure on social security, we must keep things in proportion. Social security spending, as I said earlier, is high, but there is probably no cheaper alternative for families' bills at the end of the week or month. It is certainly not right simply to pass the buck to other Departments, charities or the population as a whole.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is nice to have an early opportunity to enter the debate, even though it is earlier than I, in my naivety, had expected.
We are discussing not only the recent work of the Select Committee but supplementary estimates. Indeed, we are formally asked to approve an extra £19 million to the cash limit for the running costs of the Department of Social Security. Often, the House takes scrutiny of public spending too lightly. but it should be no light matter that we are asked to approve a further £19 million. As, according to my arithmetic, much of the money is for the running costs of the Child Support Agency, I shall focus later on the work of the CSA. I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to update us on its work and present a progress report, because we need progress on the implementation of child support.
I am a recently retired member of the Social Security Committee. It is appropriate that its esteemed Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), opened the debate. It was a privilege to serve on it under his chairmanship for one parliamentary Session. I welcome the opportunity that I had to work with him and, indeed, Conservative colleagues. I had the honour of contributing in a small way to the report that we are discussing today.
We should put the supplementary estimate in the context of the increase in public expenditure on social security. In 1989–90, we spent some £50 billion on social security. That figure is now £90 billion in cash terms, which is a considerable increase. It is easily the largest of our public expenditure programmes. Indeed, it represents a staggering one third of total public expenditure.

Mr. Frank Field: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, I hope that he will find time to talk about the change in the nature of poverty. Whereas we talked of it primarily in economic terms and causes, we now—as I think my hon. Friend is hinting at—talk of it as being much more socially based.

Mr. Wicks: Indeed. The Chairman of my former Committee anticipates some of my remarks and hits on a very important point about family insecurity. I shall say something about that, but we should dwell on the sheer size of the social security budget, which now represents one third of total public spending. Although it would be rash, I suspect, to argue the possibility of bringing that total down, I feel instinctively that it is consuming too large a proportion of public spending and, given the other demands on the welfare state and the Government, we should look critically at it.
I ask the House to distinguish between the term social security—not in the sense of rather dry terminology for a set of benefits—and state benefits. I put it to the House that what makes social security, in the proper usage of that term, is not just state benefits. Many other factors contribute to social security. Indeed, many of the other factors are often more important than the contribution to security that comes from state benefits. I also argue that, on state benefits. we need to be vigorous and rigorous about defining objectives and to look critically at the public expenditure total to see to what extent some public spending relates directly to the objectives and to true social security, and to what extent public spending is perhaps more a symptom of social insecurity and of the fact that other parts of society, the economy and public policy are not working as well as they should. I shall give one example.
I do not think that any of the great figures who have set out social security objectives have ever said that it is an objective of social security policy to enable men in their 50s or early 60s to draw benefits—whether invalidity benefits or income support—as a stop-gap measure between an early period of unemployment or redundancy and when they are able to draw their state retirement pension, yet the data on economic inactivity, or what is essentially unemployment, show that a large proportion of men who are not so old are economically inactive. They are out of the labour market.
I sometimes think that the House has a strange custom of discussing the retirement age, not least in relation to European directives towards gender equality and whether to equalise at 65, 60 or 63. We have had that debate. It is all based on an assumption that men retire at 65. Some do. Some of us may hope to retire later.

Mr. David Congdon: The hon. Gentleman is being optimistic.

Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman—my pair—is worried about my employment security. I can tell him that I am rather more confident about it at the moment than he has any right to be about his.
Men aged 55 to 59 can hardly be considered old. One would expect some 90 per cent. of them to be in employment, but the reality is that one in three is out of work. In the slightly older group—those aged 60 to 64, who are in the period just before retirement—just over four out of 10 are in work. The amount of economic inactivity among middle-aged to older men is massive. That was never meant to be. William Beveridge, Labour Governments and Conservative Governments never said that we should support that group, through social security, income support or invalidity benefits of one kind or another to be on benefit and not in work, but it has come to be.
I was following the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham—

Mr. Field: Rochdale.

Mr. Wicks: It was certainly somewhere beginning with an R. I apologise to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and the good people of—

Mr. Keith Bradley: Rotherham.

Ms Lynne: Rochdale.

Mr. Wicks: My ungallant Friend said Rotherham, but, being more gallant, I meant Rochdale. The hon. Lady argued that we should be able to afford that sum of money. I am inclined to agree with her at one level, but only if we are convinced that we are spending it properly. I am not convinced that we are doing so at present. Let us have a debate about social security objectives and ensure that public money is spent appropriately on them.

Mr. Field: Before my hon. Friend develops that theme, may I take him back one step? He rightly emphasises that many people now feel insecure and that social security payments support that insecurity. Is it not also true that a


large number of men are inactive in the age group to which he refers because they have been able to draw down their occupational pension early, so we now get the success of the company pension scheme impacting on the social security budget?
In my area—some distance from Croydon, but not that far from Rochdale—two former public utilities are merging and there will be large-scale lay-offs. We are also affected by the Mobil-BP merger, which will result in lay-offs. Does my hon. Friend think that we ought to consider whether it is necessary to issue social security impact statements when firms propose merging and, to use the euphemistic expression, downsizing their labour forces? Much of the cost of the two mergers in my area will be borne by taxpayers in general, who will have to pick up the social security costs of people who would otherwise be in work but will become unemployed, and soon unemployable, as a result of those changes.

Mr. Wicks: That is an interesting observation and recommendation, to which we shall certainly want to give more thought. If it seems to be a good idea, given that the Department of Social Security plans so radically to cut its running costs and, presumably, its labour force, perhaps it should make the first social security impact statement. The Minister might want to announce that later if he intends to proceed along those lines.
Given the importance of spending our social security money effectively, the theme of fraud, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead introduced, is obviously important. I shall not add to his remarks, but we agree with the emphasis he put on the need to combat fraud. We welcome the recent increased determination of the Government, but we would want to go rather further. It would be worth calculating at some stage how much money has been squandered these past 16 years because the Government have made only lame attempts to combat fraud. It must become a key social security objective to ensure the promotion of the honest social security pound; to ensure that every pound of taxpayers' money is spent as honestly as possible.
In my advice surgery in Croydon, North-West, when I sometimes have to explain to people who are hard pressed that they will not receive more benefit, despite their old age or disability, it makes me furious to think that we are being defrauded of hundreds of thousands, millions or perhaps billions of pounds that could be used for people in genuine need. It is a very human matter.
We need to distinguish between the public policies that would make for social security and the role within them of state benefits. My theme is that the two are rather different. They are not necessarily the same. We need to use the phrase "social security" in the proper sense in the English language. What makes for social security in that wider sense? I suppose that most fundamental is the economy and employment, and enabling more of our citizens to find a secure place in the job market. That is obvious. It was well understood by William Beveridge, but we need a renewed determination to enable more of our citizens to get into employment.
Therefore, Opposition Members were in despair when we heard the proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister to deregulate the employment market for those in small businesses. If there was one thing that we did not need at this precise time, it was a suggestion that a Deputy

Prime Minister could be seriously contemplating making more of our citizens economically insecure and therefore insecure about their social life, their housing and the rest of it. This is precisely the time when enhancing and developing security should be one of the major and first responsibilities of government.
If economic security and employment security are important, we need to work hard at changing our social security system. I remember very well one particular constituent who came to my advice surgery in Thornton Heath about a housing problem. We talked more generally about her situation. She was on income support. She was drawing housing benefit. In some respects, she was totally dependent on the state. She was a prime example of the state of dependency that has been created these past 15 or so years, a state that we have to change in the coming five years.
When I asked my constituent how she saw her future, her eyes started to shine and she said, "I want a job." I asked her what she wanted to do. She wanted to be a traffic warden. Not only did she have determination, but she was brave, given the circumstances of Croydon traffic, and had an ambition which should have been fostered. I asked whether she ever talked of her ambition when she went to the DSS office and talked to various officials. She said that no one had ever asked her if she wanted a job. No one had ever sat down with her to talk about her ambition and how it might be realised.
Under the current social security regime, a lone mother is entitled to draw income support until her youngest child is 16. We have to start to change the culture. I am talking not about compulsion but about sensitivity. I am talking about a social security office where, in liaison with an employment office, someone would sit down with that young woman and say, "This is great news. You have a good ambition. We are going to help you. We are going to talk about your training and building any confidence that you might need,"—although this young woman did not need confidence; she had plenty of it—"We are going to talk about child care implications and the jobs that are available. We will certainly fix you up with the traffic warden people, but we will talk to other people. We can take some months on this." Was that happening? No, it was not.
The future social security system has to be in the business of helping young women such as my constituent who have no ambition to remain dependent or to draw social security for ever, but have an ambition to be independent. How we move from dependency to independence is the key theme of social security policy in the late 1990s.
I have talked about employment security. Let me also talk about family security and insecurity—the theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead tempted me to discuss and one that I want to discuss. Family security is as important as economic security in enabling us to live our lives in a satisfactory way, not only in terms of cash, although that it important, but more generally. Family breakdown and related family change are now a major cause of poverty, disadvantage and new forms of inequality that are opening up in our society. If we need evidence of that, it comes in part from the Select Committee report on low income statistics that was published in February 1995. The report includes a table that shows that family breakdown and the rise of the


lone-parent family is probably a more important cause of poverty and disadvantage than are the traditional causes of unemployment and low wages.
Data for 1992 show that 3.6 million—almost 3.7 million—children in Great Britain are dependent on income support or in families that have net resources below the income support level because of low wages. That is a shocking indicator of child poverty in a supposedly affluent society. Of those children, 1.8 million are in lone-parent families. Unemployment contributes a huge 1 million children, but the number of children in lone-parent families is much greater. William Beveridge would not have recognised that phenomenon. In 1942, when he and Parliament examined the causes of social insecurity that needed to be tackled by social insurance and the national assistance scheme, that factor was not uppermost in their minds. We need to work hard at addressing that considerable problem.
I want to consider how the power and pace of family change contribute to social insecurity and new forms of child poverty. First, more children are born out of wedlock. I make no moral judgments on that—it is not the subject of the debate—but the statistics relate to our theme of child poverty and social insecurity. Back in 1960, only 5 per cent. of children were born out of wedlock. Today, the proportion is a massive 32 per cent. Nearly one in three children are born outside marriage. Half of them are born to cohabiting couples; the other half to single unmarried mothers. We know that 85 per cent. of single unmarried mothers draw income support. It is a demographic trend of direct relevance to the estimates and public spending.
While cohabitation comes in all shapes and sizes and can include some of the most well-to-do and affluent couples, there is a general association between cohabitation and disadvantage. Although demographers are not clear about it, my reading of the research suggests that cohabiting parents are more likely to suffer a breakdown of their relationship than are married couple parents. That is a contributory factor to insecurity. I have mentioned the change since 1960, but over the past decade alone, the number of children born outside marriage has almost doubled. That is a rapid change with major consequences for our debates on social security and social insecurity.
There is also the question of divorce, which is exercising our minds and those of modern Governments more and more. It is no coincidence that the House will soon receive a Bill on divorce law reform from the other place. The key question is how to obtain a modern divorce law that puts children first. Pension splitting and the social security implications of divorce are related themes. The Child Support Agency is another consequence of divorce and has become a powerful theme. The bad news is that it will become even more important in the future.
I recently asked a parliamentary question to update some data with which I had been familiar when I worked at the Family Policy Studies Centre. I asked Government statisticians, who are the best in the country for such forecasting, what percentage of marriages are likely to end in divorce. The answer was 41 per cent.—more than four out of 10. That forecast is not wild, but a sober estimate by sensible demographers and scientists. The issues surrounding that, which relate to child maintenance, are

crucial to our social security. I shall come to them later. If we do not get that right, we are in deep trouble in respect of insecurities among families and of state spending on benefits.
Every year, there are 160,000 children under 16 in Great Britain whose parents divorce. It is interesting that the children involved are becoming younger. Divorces occur more quickly than they did 10 or 15 years ago. The figures for 1993 for England and Wales show that there were 55,000 children under five who had mums and dads who divorced—25 per cent. more than in 1983. Not only are many children affected by the phenomenon but they are wearing an even younger face than they used to. More children spend some or all of their childhoods in one-parent families.
The picture is further complicated by remarriage and, to use a slightly ugly expression, repartnering. The Minister winces because he is a sensitive man. I use the word because cohabitation is more common after the break-up of first marriages than as a substitute for first marriages. We have to invent a term for that. One in three marriages this weekend will involve someone marrying for the second time.
The phenomenon of the step-family, which is well known in literature and fairy tales, is becoming more important. It is estimated that 1 million or more children under 16 live in step-families. Of them, 770,000—the majority—are stepchildren but 280,000 are children of new relationships. Any attempt by society through state and government to consider the social policy implications of those trends, not least in relation to child maintenance, deals with complex territory. The complexity of the child support formula needs to be addressed. There is a legitimate debate about whether it should be yet more complex—more sensitive to particular circumstances—or whether we should have a simpler formula and rougher justice. I believe that the Select Committee will consider that issue in this Session.
The complexity is caused by the family circumstances and human relationships becoming more complex. Politicians, the Government and Parliament have been slow to address those issues because they feel uncomfortable about tackling some of the most difficult, complex and sensitive matters in society. The politician treads into the blood and thunder of human relationships and their breakdown at his or her peril. Even the best imaginable system, which I am bound to say we do not have at the moment, will run into difficulties because of that. That is relevant because the Government are asking us to approve supplementary estimates that include another £16 million for the running of the Child Support Agency.

Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting description of recent social trends and many of the aspects that he describes are deeply worrying. Is he suggesting that the social security system has been the cause of those trends? I wonder what he thinks we should do about them, if anything. How should the social security system respond to them? He said that we are spending too much on social security, so what changes do we need to make?

Mr. Wicks: I shall deal with the Child Support Agency and how we can create more effectiveness and fairness later. In direct response to the hon. Gentleman's


thoughtful question, however, I do not believe that our social security arrangements contribute to family breakdown, although I recognise that there is an interesting debate to be had on that point.
At the moment, we seem to spend an awful lot of energy, time, legislation and public money on the consequences of family breakdown. The House of Commons Library gave me some figures, which show that the public costs of divorce are about £4 billion every year. Most of that is made up of social security—income support and so forth—but some is legal aid and the impact on the health service. How much money are we spending trying to save marriages and support family relationships? We spend money on Relate and other marriage guidance services.
I want a shift of emphasis towards trying to support and help relationships in trouble, rather than spending all our energy and public resources on breakdown when it occurs. As a long-standing advocate of a family policy strategy, I would certainly say that we have not got the balance right.
I am arguing that the social revolution of family change that we are in the midst of has not been without victims. It has not been a bloodless revolution—there are very few such revolutions. Victims come in all shapes and sizes and, of course, include many men, not least those who find that they are unable to continue a relationship with their children.
In financial terms, the main victims have always been, and remain, the women and children. It has been a case of women and children last in that aspect of family politics. We see that in the poverty statistics and in the fact that, in the main—of course, there are exceptions—it is women and children who have to depend on the state and on income support. One million one-parent families are drawing income support.
Whatever our criticism of the operation of the CSA—being a passionate believer in the principle of parental responsibility, I am among the foremost critics of the workings of that agency in practice—we must remember that the old system simply did not work. Anyone who advocates turning back the clock to a court-based system has to confront the data and the evidence that show that it was a failure. It delivered maintenance to only about one third of children.

Ms Lynne: I agree that the old system of the liable relatives unit, in particular, was a failure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in terms of cost, there is not much to choose between the CSA and the old system? Some figures that I have obtained even suggest that the old liable relatives unit was far most cost-effective in saving the taxpayer money. Although I would not want a return to that unit—I would like a unified family court system, in which every case was assessed individually—I want us to get away from the formula system.

Mr. Wicks: I understand the hon. Lady's argument, but I do not support it. We cannot return to that sort of court system, although I know that the hon. Lady denies it. We need to think hard about ways of bringing greater sensitivity and justice into the system. I shall deal with that briefly later, if there is time.
It is a pity that we do not know more about the workings of the old maintenance system. I do not think that it was researched thoroughly and I have never seen a proper report on it. Our public debates on its pros and cons would be advanced if we had more information.
I have already hinted at the argument that, given the complexity of human and family relationships, developing an effective child support or maintenance policy was always going to be difficult. Although those of us who had the opportunity to study the Australian and New Zealand systems of child support recently were impressed by aspects of those systems—certainly by the Australian system—even in those societies the systems have been immensely controversial and the subject of the majority of contributions to parliamentarians' postbags, as in this country.
I do not think that I say this merely with the benefit of hindsight—the case was argued at the time—but the Child Support Agency should have been introduced in a far more sensitive way. Ideally—in the politics of Thatcherism it was never going to happen—the emphasis should have been placed on child support as social policy, not on the mean-minded morality that it quickly became when it was introduced by the former Prime Minister, then Mrs. Thatcher. After all, it is called child support; it should have been genuine child support. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the matter because, in a sense, we have missed an historic opportunity for a proper public debate about child support and the obligations of parents to their children.
I can think of two questions that should have been central to that debate—there are probably others. First, how, in the great majority of cases, do we enable both parents to share in the care and maintenance of their children in turbulent family times? There will always be exceptions when men are violent and so forth.
I have reviewed briefly some of the demographics, but my argument is that, sadly, turbulent family times will not go away in the next 10 years. If—this may now be true—only about 50 per cent. of children will spend all their childhood in what we once would have called the traditional family and are born to parents who are married to one another and stay married until the children become adult, these issues do not merely concern a minority of our people and our children, but are central. Despite divorce and the phenomenon of children being born outside wedlock, how do we enable both parents to share in the care and maintenance of their children? That is a central question. Hon. Members will notice that I said care and maintenance. It is about not merely money and cash, but parental responsibility in a wider sense.
Secondly, how do we avoid the trends becoming forces for child poverty and disadvantage? Instead of having that sensible debate, we had Thatcherite mean-mindedness posing as morality. It was led by the then Prime Minister. I well remember her speech to the National Children's Home. That speech and her emphasis on parental responsibility, which she tackled in her own particular way, was as much a surprise to Social Security Ministers as to the rest of us. They did not see the policy coming—they saw it as a hand grenade rolling towards them, with the pin half pulled out. The Treasury then seized the opportunity—it saw the policy as a major way of raising revenue—and thwarted the Department of Social Security when, I suspect, it was arguing that there should be a disregard, as we call it in technical language, to enable


mothers on income support at least to get some child support so that their net incomes and the welfare of their children could be enhanced.
The combination of the then Prime Minister's policy and the Treasury seizing the opportunity led to the bad start to child maintenance from which we have not recovered thus far, and from which it will be difficult to recover. I refer to the quite extraordinary catastrophe that the Child Support Agency quickly became. It takes months to make assessments, it has a huge error rate and it is insensitive to those who are trying to communicate with it. I do not have the opportunity today to discuss the Child Support Agency in great detail, but it is appropriate—not least because £16 million of the supplementary estimate that we are being asked to approve today is for running the Child Support Agency—to ask some questions of the Under-Secretary of State.
Will the Minister give hon. Members an up-to-date report on, and the accuracy of, the time taken to undertake the assessments and enforcement within the agency? I believe that such an update would be most helpful. Will the Minister also tell hon. Members how much child support is now being collected and the projections for the coming financial year? In addition, how much of that money will go to the Exchequer and how much of it will go to the parent with care—normally, but not always, the mother?
Does the Minister have anything to say about improving, or developing the human face of, the Child Support Agency, given its reputation for insensitivity? Are there ways in which the people dealing with the agency—whether they are the mothers, usually the parents with care, or the fathers, the so-called absent parents—can be made to feel that someone at the end of the telephone line understands their case and can discuss it with them in a human way?
Many hon. Members are interested in and impressed by the so-called CAST system being pioneered at the Hastings centre. Some months ago, I had the opportunity to visit the centre and I talked to the staff about the system. It is an attempt to deal with people in the round. It would be useful to know how it is progressing. Does the Minister have any plans to expand the system across the country?
Traditionally, complaints about the workings of the Child Support Agency have come from men—the so-called absent parents. I have received many letters about the way in which many men, quite understandably, feel resentful about being called "absent parents". We are still grappling with the terminology on this issue. Given that being a parent is not just about paying maintenance, but is about providing care to children—as so many fathers do in difficult family circumstances—we need better terminology. The term "absent parent" is an insult.

Mr. Frank Field: Will my father—will my hon. Friend give way? The Select Committee on Social Security has suggested that we use the word "father".

Mr. Wicks: I am glad that my hon. Friend confirmed that I am not his father—if I were, I would struggle to pay maintenance on him. As nine out of 10 parents with

care are mothers—and, therefore, nine out of 10 absent parents are fathers—we could often use the term "father". However, we must allow for the reverse situation.

Ms Lynne: I suggest that the term "liable parent" could be used instead of the terms "absent parent" or "father". Some liable parents—only a few—are mothers.

Mr. Wicks: I take that important point.
Many of the fathers who write to me or to other hon. Members about grievances to do with child support are often doing their best to pay the child maintenance. However, they find that, when there_ is a change in their circumstances—for example, a postman may have a higher rate of pay over Christmas but then wants to tell the Child Support Agency that his wages have decreased—it is enormously difficult to communicate with the agency. For example, they can never find one person at the end of the telephone line who will take their point, put it into the system and report back to them in a decent way to say that their assessment has been varied.
We all have the right to expect that kind of obvious sensitivity when we are dealing with a bank or with a building society—I am not saying that we always get it from those institutions—and we want to bring it into the workings of the Child Support Agency. Many men feel aggrieved—and justifiably so—and we need to allow for that in any reforms of the agency.
Many mothers—the parents with care—also have grievances about the way in which the Child Support Agency has not delivered. I shall quote a letter—with care as I want to protect the identity of the woman—from a mother who has recently come to see me at the House of Commons about her situation. She is a young mother with a son, and she was on income support at one stage and contacted the Child Support Agency. She has since found a full-time job in London at a reasonable, but not generous, level of pay. She lives in the home counties. For the past two or three years she has been trying to get the Child Support Agency to find the father of her child so that he will contribute some maintenance. In many ways, she illustrates the kind of benefit-to-work strategy of which we are all in favour. She has a tough life. Her letter states:
As a working mother, my day starts at 7.40 am when I leave for work; I don't get home until 7.30, when I collect my son from the childminder's. I then return home and have to do all the household chores. This is not a situation I deliberately created—I was forced to leave my son's father because he is a very violent man and I feared for our safety. I even had to have a non-molestation order served against him.
She has told me that she has not received any maintenance payments from the man since she left him. She also told me that this man has four other children, by two other relationships, and that he pays maintenance towards none of the children—a fact that he openly laughs about.
I shall not go into too much detail about the mother and her situation, except to say that, for two or three years, she has been trying to get the Child Support Agency to act. She told me in our meeting that she thought that the Child Support Agency was there to help her and her son, and that she cannot understand why it has not delivered. I was appalled when I looked at some of the correspondence on this issue between the Child Support Agency and another hon. Member. That woman knew where the man was, knew that he was in employment and


believed that he earned about £400 a week. She gave the Child Support Agency the man's address and the agency wrote to the address. The man or his new girlfriend scribbled on the back of the envelope, "Not known at this address" and the Child Support Agency told the woman, "I am sorry; he is not known at that address." If that is the sophistication of the Child Support Agency, we are in deep trouble.
The woman rang up the Child Support Agency one day to say, "I can tell you that he is in employment, because I have heard that he is." The agency staff said, "We shall try to trace the employer," but later told her, "I am sorry; we cannot trace the employer." The woman said, "Hold on a moment, I shall call you back." She made a few telephone calls and found out where the man was working—on a highway, doing construction work. She told the Child Support Agency all about it, but still there was no action.
That story lasted several years. Eventually, the Child Support Agency managed to track down the man and produced an interim maintenance assessment, but made a procedural mistake and had to withdraw it. Two or three years later, the man has paid no maintenance towards that little boy or any of his four other children.
When the woman first approached the agency, she was told by the man from the agency on the telephone, "It will be difficult; he is self-employed. If I were you, I wouldn't bother." The Child Support Act 1991, passed by Parliament with much support on both sides of the House, is not delivering to that woman and her child.
Generalisations are unfair; I know that the agency has tracked down some such men, but suspicion remains that the agency regards as a soft touch men in secure employment in a major private company or in the public sector—teachers, police officers and so on—and pursues them to obtain more money from them, but that many men in difficult cases continue to get away with it. Some fathers are laughing at Parliament, at the agency and at the mothers and their children, saying, "I won't pay anything. I would rather go to prison than pay anything. They will never catch me," and continue to get away with it. That is not what Parliament intended. It has brought the Child Support Agency into grave disrepute because people do not regard it as effective social policy or effective child support.
As part of Labour's general review of social security, we have been reconsidering the operation of the child support system. We reaffirm easily and clearly our principled support for the important principle of parental responsibility, but we are angry and worried that that decent principle—indeed, a guiding principle in the turbulent family times in which we find ourselves—is brought into disrepute by the continuing thoroughly bad practice of the Child Support Agency.
We reaffirm our commitment to the principle of introducing a disregard so that mothers who are on income support, every penny of whose child maintenance is currently taken away from their income support, obtain some net income and net benefit from it. We are not in a position to say when the disregard might be introduced or the amount because, obviously, that depends on total commitments and other spending priorities, but we reaffirm that important principle. If the public and some fathers—some of the so-called "absent parents"—could be sure that a certain fraction of their child maintenance

went directly into the pockets of mothers and benefited their own children, we would start to turn the position around and bring what is at the moment a mean-minded piece of policy into the true province of social policy. That is the challenge.
In considering in more detail the workings of the Child Support Agency, Opposition Members have two major objectives—fairness and efficiency.
A disregard would be an important step forward in fairness. People would regard that as fair to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer would continue to benefit from most of the extra revenue coming in. We have no quarrel with that; the taxpayer has a major interest. The taxpayer is not an anonymous person but often a mother or father, struggling to bring up children and resenting having to contribute too much to other people's children. We acknowledge that the taxpayer has a legitimate interest, but we need to strike a fairer balance between the interests of taxpayers and the interests of mothers and their children. We shall strike that balance.
We need to review the operations of the Child Support Agency to seek a way to introduce a greater sense of independence and fairness into the system. At the moment, people feel that they are dealing with a monolithic agency—a grey, bureaucratic agency—that can never deal with them in the round. It would be a step in the right direction to find a way to allow people who feel a sense of grievance that they are not being treated properly or whose family position is so complex that they do not believe that the formula can deal with them properly, an independent review or adjudication. We are investigating that in detail.
Greater efficiency is needed. It is nonsensical that it takes months to process assessments and that, in the case that I described of the young mother struggling to do her best for her child, the system is so ineffective that, despite being given all the clues, all the details and all the addresses by that woman, the agency cannot yet find that man and make him pay maintenance. We need greater effectiveness.
Yes, we support the principle of parental responsibility—I could not have made that clearer—but we need to consider the workings of the agency, so that we shall be able to say one day that it is as effective as possible and fairer than it ever has been.
The major challenge for the House in turbulent family times is to ensure that parental responsibility works, because all our children deserve to be brought up, wherever possible, by both their parents. We need care and responsibility. Saving the decent principle of parental responsibility from bad practice is a key challenge for future social policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): This afternoon, we have listened to four very interesting speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and by Opposition Members. This has been a shortish debate, which may reflect the fact that, in the past three weeks, we have had three major debates on social security. Opposition Members—and indeed Conservative Members—may he suffering from social security fatigue.
Coming relatively fresh to estimates debates, I am struck by how much has changed in the way in which these matters are discussed in the three years since my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered his Mais lecture. A copy of the lecture is indispensable to any discussion of social security in much the same way as the thoughts and writings of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who opened today's debate, whose speeches are also indispensable to any junior Minister trying to work his way through the maze of social security.
Three years ago, politicians tended to boast about the increase in welfare spending. I remember that a leading Labour academic wrote a paper called "The Future of Welfare: A Guide to the Debate", in which he advocated that an extra 5 per cent. of gross domestic product on social security spending would do the trick.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made kind remarks about Government statisticians, which I shall pass on, and said that he wanted to consider appropriate objectives for social security. Conservative Members have little doubt what the appropriate objectives are. In recent years there has been a reduction in the underlying growth in social security, not only because it is a burden to the taxpayer, but because of the growth in the dependency culture, which is wrong. Many of those changes were enshrined in last year's heavy social security legislative programme. We are now enabling the country to meet genuine need without outstripping the country's ability to pay.
I fear that we remain in considerable doubt about the Labour party's views; it is not at all clear where it is heading. All will be revealed on 8 May when the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench announce the result of their six-month review—they have been instructed by their leader to think the unthinkable. We are all waiting with bated breath to hear what emerges from that important process.
If we consider the international comparisons overseas, we see just how far ahead of the field the Government are on the issue of social security. In Germany, there is widespread discussion of the problem of non-wage labour costs and the burdens that they impose on an economy that is struggling to reach the Maastricht criteria. Unemployment in Germany is higher than at any time since the last war, and reached 4.3 million in February.
The position in France is no less severe. France is also suffering high social costs, as we know from the vivid media reports of the recent unrest in Paris and other big cities. In the face of widespread strikes by public sector workers in November, Jacques Barrot, the Social Affairs Minster, said: "There is no alternative" to welfare reform. The strikers were protesting against the social security reforms announced by the Prime Minister.
In a television interview in October, President Chirac called on France to follow the
courageous example of the UK
in reducing public expenditure. He spoke of the urgent need to reduce the public deficit, especially that of the social security budget. He said that France had lived beyond its means for too long. But in the face of continued strikes and protests, the French Government have had to backtrack on some of their planned reforms: they have given way over public sector pensions and postponed the proposed taxation of family benefits.
I gave those international comparisons as they show not only the extent to which the Labour party is still wallowing about and trying to work out where to go, but how far ahead of the international game the British Government are in tackling those difficult problems.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend is right: there is no doubt that the United Kingdom Government are far ahead of the game in dealing with the burgeoning cost of social security spending. Does he agree that it is striking that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that he wanted to cut the total amount of social security spending—he said that it was too high at one third of the total—but every time that the Secretary of State makes relatively minor reductions in spending, the Labour party opposes them?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right, which is why he must make a note in his diary for 8 May, the date on which the Opposition will advise the House of their programmes and plans after their six-month review. I see from what my hon. Friend said that he is looking forward to that day as much as I am.

Mr. Wicks: The Government—faced with rocketing social security spending because of the economic recession and a lack of decent social policy—have made benefit claimants suffer by cutting and withdrawing their benefits. But the proper strategy, which new Labour will adopt, is to get people off benefit; there are simply too many people on income support. We shall have a proper benefit-to-work strategy that will get people off benefit. The difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party is that, under the last Labour Government, there were not so many people on income support or supplementary benefit.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that if he is to convince the House on 8 May that his party has a serious social security strategy, and I look forward to what he has to say on that day.
In his important contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield talked about the work of the agencies and the success that they have achieved. He mentioned the fact that the work of the Department and its agencies is tagged, in an attachment to the Select Committee's report, on today's Order Paper. The report confirms the agencies' success and the improvements that they have brought about.
The agencies' benefits include improved clarification of roles and responsibilities in framework documents, and greater public accountability through the publication of business plans and annual reports and accounts. Responsibility for decision making is devolved to the lowest suitable level closest to the point of delivery, allowing real improvements in customer service and efficiency to be made.
The improvements derived from agency status can also easily be seen by the agencies' customers in the service that they now receive. Better customer service has been achieved because the agencies have allowed improvements in management through greater coherence in control and planning, and through service-level agreements that protect the services that customers can expect to receive. As agencies focus on specific areas of


business, it has also been possible to consider ways of achieving further efficiencies, and each agency is required to identify and deliver a challenging efficiency programme each year.
The agencies are a success—that is easily demonstrated by a range of published figures. But there is still room for further improvements in efficiency, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the Department's change programme. Under that programme. a key step in our long-term review of social security, we are taking a fundamental look at what we deliver and how we deliver it over the next three years.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) asked me to comment on a leak in The Guardian. I do not normally comment on leaks of material, but the article refers to an early document relating to the Department's running costs review. and no decisions have been taken on the subjects mentioned.
The elimination of fraud—which was comprehensively covered in last week's debate and by the hon. Member for Birkenhead today—is not an afterthought. Reducing administrative costs will not be done at the expense of safeguarding benefit money. Our objective is to deliver the right money to the right people at the right time, whereas fraud involves money going to the wrong person. The extra funds secured for the security programme are ring-fenced for use on specific security and control activity, and cannot be diverted. We are committed to reducing the level of fraud by 70 per cent. over the security strategy period and the target will be unaffected by proposals in the change programme.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West spoke about the dangers and disasters of family breakdown. He spoke about security, particularly job security. I am sure that he would want to pay credit to the Government's in-work programme and their family credit programme, which make an important contribution at one level to the points that he raised. But at another level the hon. Gentleman spoke of the vital necessity of the Child Support Agency. I want to address a number of points that he raised on that subject.
I have today laid regulations before the House that pave the way for the trial of an important change in the way that child support liability is calculated. The new provisions will introduce an element of discretion that will allow the Child Support Agency to take account of certain special expenses and other commitments that the standard assessment formula is unable to accommodate.
The new provisions will deal with a number of specific issues. At present, the calculation of liability is governed by the assessment formula. That formula is necessarily detailed as it attempts to deal with the wide variety of circumstances that may be present in any particular case. However, despite the formula's detailed nature, it is impossible for such a system to meet every eventuality.
The new provisions will introduce the flexibility required to allow greater recognition of special expenses and other commitments that are not covered by the formula. It will also enable the agency to crack down on absent parents, principally fathers, who seek to reduce their child support liabilities by diverting income elsewhere.
It will be possible for a parent to apply for a departure direction under three broad categories: where there is a special expense; where there has been a property or capital

transfer—a so-called clean-break case; or in other specified circumstances. We shall pilot the measure in the south-east of England, where it will be based on the Hastings Child Support Agency centre. Subject to evaluation and the pilot scheme's success, I hope to introduce it throughout the nation in December of this year.
These changes to the policy go hand in hand with a determined drive to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency—the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West spoke of the importance of doing so. The signs of recovery are now there for all to see and the agency's performance is improving in all areas of its work. While improvements may not have been dramatic, they have been steady and continuous. That is not to say that I am satisfied with the present state of affairs; there is certainly no room for complacency. We are constantly looking for ways in which to improve administration and streamline procedures in order to boost performance. Indeed, I expect to lay further regulations before the House in June. They will introduce more administrative improvements—for example, simplifying the way in which housing costs are calculated, and streamlining the procedures relating to reduced benefit directions. As many hon. Members will know, the calculation of housing costs has been lengthy, administratively complex and prone to inaccuracy; some simple changes should lead to worthwhile improvement.

Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend may say that I have only just entered the Chamber. Thanks to the wonders of information technology, however, I have been watching both him and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—who made a thoughtful speech—on the box in my office.
Will the housing costs to which my hon. Friend referred include mortgage costs? We hear endless stories of one partner claiming that the mortgage is now higher, while the other—the former spouse—retorts that the aim in taking out such a large mortgage is merely to twist him or her, and diddle the children.

Mr. Mitchell: The point made by my hon. Friend—with which I am very familiar, as he has brought two of his constituents to discuss it with me—is dealt with in the departures that I mentioned a moment ago, which we are piloting from today.
Achieving major improvements in a large organisation that is performing a complicated task in difficult circumstances is not easy; but, although I realise that improvements will take time, no one should doubt my determination to ensure that the CSA achieves the standards that its customers have the right to expect. We are setting challenging targets for further progress, and I am determined to ensure that they are met.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about a number of those challenges. First, he asked about accuracy. That has improved significantly. Accuracy within 1p—that is the way in which we measure it—was set a 75 per cent. target this year; in the last month, 77 per cent. was achieved. A target of 85 per cent. will be set for next year. As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will realise, that is a significant improvement in comparison with accuracy in regard to income support.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West also asked about collections. The agency hopes to reach its target for the current financial year of £300 million collected and


arranged—a steep increase on last year's figure—and will set a target of between £380 million and £400 million for next year. Substantial progress has already been made, and I expect more to be made next year.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the public face of the CSA. Far more emphasis has been placed on the training of staff, to ensure that they respond to a number of criticisms made by clients. In particular, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the CAST system. Following a change in CSA policy, clients who used to negotiate with people who specialised in only one function will be able to deal with a "table" of people who are fully conversant with all aspects of their case.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the system that is now up and running in Hastings. Over the next year, it will spread to all six child support assessment centres. He also spoke of the importance of seeing a friendly face. The fact that assessments are now increasingly dealt with in the field rather than at one of the six centres will help tremendously in achieving that.
These changes, along with the continuing improvements in the administration of the scheme, will speed the process of public acceptance of the principles behind the Child Support Act 1991. The changes introduced by the regulations are part of the process of civilising the scheme that we began last year. We have already ensured that maintenance should not exceed 30 per cent. of an absent parent's income, and the new arrangements will give us the flexibility that we need to provide further help for parents on whom the formula bears hardest.
A point was made about the description "absent parent" or "parent with care": I await a letter promised to me by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who wishes to advance specific ideas of behalf of the Select Committee. We shall give serious consideration to what she says.
In a most interesting speech, the hon. Member for Birkenhead took us to task for the extent to which we have borne down on fraud. I am sorry if I am misquoting him; I think that he wanted to ensure that our work in countering fraudulent activity was up to the mark. We pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is almost alone among Opposition Members in taking a serious interest in the subject, and we shall take careful note of what he said.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned landlord fraud. Let me point out that about a third of rents are reduced—in respect of the eligibility rent level—as a result of examination. We are opposed to all fraud. I suspect that landlord fraud is impossible without a real or imagined claimant, but we take the hon. Gentleman's points seriously, and will examine them all in detail.
I believe that today's debate and, indeed, our last two major debates on social security show that the Government are succeeding in containing the growth of social security spending, while ensuring that we have a system that helps those who need it. Long-term control has not, however, been achieved at the expense of the most needy. We shall maintain the value of benefits this year by uprating in line with inflation, at a cost of more than £2.5 billion.
A number of the changes that have been announced will enable people to become more self-reliant—easing the transition from benefit dependency to independence, allowing those people to return to work and encouraging them to stay there. Reforms are making people think about providing for their own future, and encouraging them to join insurance schemes to cater for contingencies such as unemployment, illness and retirement. At the same time, the state will always provide a safety net for those who cannot afford to help themselves.
Social security spending has been declining as a proportion of gross domestic product, a downward trend that is set to continue. We are the envy of our European neighbours in that regard. Controlling growth is important for both the taxpayer and the economy, and, as a result of the reforms, a reduction of £8 billion in expenditure is expected by the end of the century—the equivalent of around 3p on the basic rate of income tax.
It is clear that the whole debate on social security has changed. It is the Government who are defining that debate, and setting the agenda for the future. We wait patiently to hear something coherent and sensible from the Opposition, but so far we have waited in vain.

Mr. Frank Field: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
Although our debate has been marred by the Trappist vows embraced by—largely—Conservative Members, it has featured some undoubted pleasures. I do not think that this is the first time that the Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box, but it is the first time that I have faced him, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that his confidence was matched by his enthusiasm: his ministerial career will clearly be limited by the date of the general election rather than by the extent of his ability.
It was a particular pleasure to listen to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). I come from a shipbuilding town, where we still talk about launches. My hon. Friend's shadow ministerial career was launched today, and no one who heard his speech will be in any doubt about how fine that liner is.
I want to comment on three aspects of the debate. In an important speech, the Conservative non-Trappist, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), spoke of one of the gains from agency status—the higher status that it will give individual workers. I hope that that is something to which the Treasury Bench will pay attention.
When I first visited the Child Support Agency building in Birkenhead, I was informed by staff—not the management—that more than half of the new clerical assistants were graduates and that their pay was £6,900 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West spoke about supporting the family. I imagine that it is difficult to support a family successfully if one of the breadwinners, or the only breadwinner, is earning £6,900 a year. We need to think about family wages. Status is not something just to be talked about: it must be reflected in the workplace and in wages. I hope that the agency will bear that in mind.
The Minister showed his skill in talking up the Government's record in cutting down the social security budget. If one did not pay too much attention to what the Government said, one might almost think that they were successful in this respect. If we took ourselves back to 1979 and asked an unsuspecting public whether a Government who were spending what is now being spent on social security, and who had a record of increases such as that which we have witnessed since 1979, were Labour or Tory, they would say that the Government must be Labour because only Labour would spend so much money on social security. This is not the time to argue about how the money has been spent and how it has been skewed towards means testing; I simply want to leave the Minister with one message to take back to the Secretary of State.
We constantly hear from the Treasury Bench about the Government's success in controlling the social security budget. That is nonsense. The Secretary of State for Social Security is a tough Minister, but if we examine every one of the four years of his stewardship of the Department, we find that the Treasury increased the amount that it thought it was going to allow for social security expenditure and that the Secretary of State bust the total. The following year, the Secretary of State again bust the increased level. It has happened in all of the years that he has been Secretary of State for Social Security—the increased budget that was negotiated has been burst by at least £1 billion.
The Secretary of State is controlling the social security budget and bringing it below the increased growth rate of the economy—only if we believe his words, not if we examine his record. If his record this year is like his record for each of the past four years, the social security budget will rise faster than the underlying growth rate of the economy.

Sir Donald Thompson: Would the hon. Gentleman mind if I put that in my election address?

Mr. Field: I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West talked about the need for us to bring the debate up to date. That is similar to the debate raised by Eleanor Rathbone, in the House and elsewhere, on the distribution of income. During the rise of new Liberalism, prior to new Labourism, she said that the emphasis in the debate on the condition of the people was on which social class got what share of the national income. The debate was primarily about which men in which jobs attracted what sort of wages. She said that it was as important, if not more important, to examine the distribution of income between families with children and families without children. The depth charge that she threw into the debate still has to be dealt with.
My hon. Friend picked up on a similar aspect of the debate when he gently reprimanded us for talking about poverty in old-fashioned terms and saying that poverty is primarily determined by economic forces. We approach the subject by asking, "Are we old and therefore out of the labour market? Are we sick or unemployed and therefore out of the labour market?" My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that, if poverty is measured by eligibility for income support, more children are poor because they live in households with only one parent than are poor because both parents are unemployed or because one parent is unemployed.
In Birkenhead on Saturday there was a "Church action on poverty" hearing. We were invited to listen to people who are poor. The first presentations illustrated exactly what my hon. Friend said about poverty and family break-up, and one of my friends at the meeting—a Liberal councillor—wondered whether we were talking about something new. Everyone became defensive because we were hearing that family break-up was a cause of poverty.
As the debate unfolded in the afternoon, a number of people got to their feet and said that they felt that they were under attack and that we were somehow blaming them for being poor. The debate that my hon. Friend has started today must be approached with enormous sensitivity because we are saying something new which might be misinterpreted but also because people can be hurt by what we say. The responsibility for some of the trends mentioned by my hon. Friend rests with the House, in that the way in which we have spoken has made it easier for people to assume positions that they would not previously have assumed.
In speaking about means testing, I have mentioned people working the system rather than working to get off benefit. I have primarily tried to blame the House for that, not my constituents whose limited opportunities may lead them to work the system.
The same applies to family break-ups. If we pilot through the House divorce reforms that allow people to break the marriage contract after a period only half the length of an average hire purchase agreement, we are sending a powerful message—we think that a HP agreement is more important than a marriage contract. That is not to say that people will not work hard at their marriages; marriages may still fail at the end of the day. I am not pointing the finger, but if we defend HP agreements more strongly than we defend the marriage contract, we are sending a dynamic message to the country. If citizens then respond in a certain way to what we are saying, we should be the last people to reprehend them. We should examine the impact of our actions on the world outside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West said that we have to get away from blaming poverty on economic causes and must consider more personal reasons such as family break-up, but I hope that we do not fall into the syndrome of blaming victims from the past. We should conduct the debate sensitively along the lines that he followed and look to the future rather than trying to get out of our responsibility for the circumstances that we are now, unhappily, debating.
Despite the Trappist monks who populate the Treasury Bench, this has been an important debate. There have been two good firsts—I was able to hear the Minister speak for the first time and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West begin his shadow, but soon—no doubt—ministerial, career. We also heard some important suggestions from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, which I hope the Ministers will note carefully and act on later today when they get back to their desks.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting—
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and
(2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.
The motion is intended simply to provide for the tidy organisation of our business tonight and for a substantial opportunity to debate the Standing Orders relating to Wales—more substantial, dare I say, than the time devoted to the debate on the Scottish Grand Committee, but it may be unwise to make that point.
Paragraph (2) of the business motion deals with voting on the estimates, which is intended to take place at the end of tonight's proceedings. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that a debate on the Standing Orders to change the Welsh Grand Committee's workings should continue until 10 o'clock this evening. Had the attitude of certain other Conservative Members been different, such a long debate might not have been necessary and the Leader of the House's comparison with the changes that we made to the Scottish Grand Committee would have been more valid. May I give hon. Members a little background to what has happened on this occasion? It might help the Leader of the House understand why we are in the position where we may debate the Standing Orders for four hours.
The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that Labour Members have long been pressing for changes to the Standing Orders on the Welsh Grand Committee. They have made it clear that the required changes should be meaningful and should properly improve the way in which the Welsh Grand Committee works. They have argued that any such changes should be implemented after discussion and by agreement among all the people involved in the Committee.
I am sure that such an approach would commend itself to the Leader of the House because, whenever he has proposed changes, he has proceeded by way of consultation. Some 18 months ago, after considerable discussion with the Opposition parties, with my predecessor and me and with hon. Members from the minority parties, he recommended changes to proceedings in the House of Commons based on the Jopling Committee's recommendations. Although we want to go further in some matters, the changes have been made on the basis of consensus, discussion and consultation.
It is important for the Leader of the House to recognise that his approach of introducing change after consultation has not been the Secretary of State's approach on this occasion. Therefore, responsibility for the problems that

the House faces in having a longer debate on these Standing Orders than on those on the Scottish Grand Committee lies clearly at the door of the Secretary of State. It is not the Leader of the House's fault that we are in this position.
The problem of negotiating changes to the Welsh Grand Committee need not have resulted in a stalemate between the Secretary of State and Welsh Members. Labour and other members of the Committee have attempted to discuss in good faith changes that would be most appropriate. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands how strong feeling is among Labour Members. Many overtures have been made to him and to his predecessor. Had any of those offers been taken up, there could have been a more constructive discussion on how the Welsh Grand Committee discussed affairs relevant to Wales.
The approaches that have been made to Ministers go back almost a year—certainly to April 1995. The Secretary of State was not in his position then, but discussions were proposed to his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) suggested to a Government Whip that changes would be appropriate and that more constructive use could be made of the time available to the Welsh Grand Committee. It took some time for the Welsh Office Minister to reply to my hon. Friend. In July, the Minister said that it was up to the Committee to determine when and where it met and that such things were arranged through the usual channels.
My hon. Friends tried to use the usual channels to arrive at some consensus. Their approaches to Ministers were rejected on all occasions—so much so that, by November last year, when the Secretary of State had been in office for four or five months, my Welsh colleagues decided that it would be appropriate to make their own proposals on the workings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
Shortly afterwards, the Secretary of State came up with some ideas and made a statement on the Welsh Grand Committee, suggesting improvements and changes in its business. Even after that statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central again tried to enter into negotiations to ensure that there was agreement on what changes were necessary to the Standing Orders and that best use was made of the time.
My hon. Friends have suggested that progress could have been made had those proposed changes been discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Members of all parties who are most affected by them. I would have thought that that was a reasonable proposition. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has been adamant that that procedure is not appropriate.
I understand from my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State still has not said why that was not possible. Had we had such a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee and, in particular, had Ministers listened to the constructive suggestions that would have been made by my hon. Friends, we could have had a far shorter debate this evening. We could have had a motion that was the subject of agreement and discussion and that was amended when proper ideas and suggestions were proposed.
The Leader of the House's approach on all these occasions—of trying to work with the people who will be affected by change—has not been followed by the Secretary of State for Wales. If he believed that his suggestions were valid and would work, it would have been reasonable to agree to Welsh Members' request to discuss them in the Welsh Grand Committee. Had that happened, we might not have needed such a lengthy debate this evening. The reason why the House's time is being taken up on these matters is that the Secretary of State has been obstinate and has decided to make decisions rather than enter into genuine consultation.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I want not only to support the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) but to add some of my own. The procedure for tabling the motion, the details of which we will discuss later, is unsatisfactory.
For those of us who were able only on Friday to submit amendments, the workings of the Table Office again turned out to be unsatisfactory because, for reasons that I do not understand but perhaps you can look into, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it refused to accept amendments that had been tabled and signed by hon. Members because they were not present in person. I understand that that is the drill to which we work on oral questions, but early-day motions and amendments to them and amendments to legislation are put down in writing. To have them refused on this occasion means that it is impossible for us to have on the Order Paper the amendments that we wanted to debate. That is because the motion appeared late on Thursday, amendments had to be tabled by Friday and the Table Office was unwilling to act.
I should like to lodge a protest on behalf of my staff about the way in which people on my staff were treated by the Table Office when they tried to negotiate on the matter. The attitude was far from satisfactory and the lack of courtesy was matched only by the lack of courtesy in not giving us proper notification of what was to come to the House.
This should be an important debate, but the opportunity for it to be constructive rather than a polarised party debate has been thrown out by the Secretary of State because, within half an hour of meeting the Welsh parliamentary party, the group containing all Welsh Members, he announced to the press that he intended to carry on regardless with the motion. He did not follow the representations that were properly and reasonably discussed by Members at the all-party meeting with the Secretary of State in the Norman Shaw building. The meeting seemed promising because it showed the way forward. It showed that we could discuss issues and move to a constructive way of handling such matters.
We spent an hour discussing the matter in detail and making constructive proposals about the orders, but the door was quickly shut on the overwhelming majority view of Welsh Members. That has inevitably led to polarisation and the issue will be fought line by line in the House. I regret not only that our amendments cannot be debated but that more have not been selected, because there is room to debate many of the amendments on the Order Paper. Presumably, the House does not have time for that.
If the Welsh Grand Committee is to be meaningful, Welsh Members from all parties will have to support the changes; but the Government's attitude has shown that

that is highly unlikely and that we will enter a period of entrenched warfare over the Committee rather than proceed on a basis of co-operation between parties. Weak as it is, that is the way in which the Committee should discuss Welsh matters. I am unhappy with the business motion and I hope that the House will divide on it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Although I confess that I cannot and do not intend to cultivate anger on this issue, it is regrettable that the debate, which of course it is procedurally right should take place on these matters, is not taking place after a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. Much trouble would have been avoided if the Welsh Grand Committee had had the opportunity to discuss the amendments and make recommendations, even if only on an advisory basis. That might have resulted in less contention.
The issue that will concern many hon. Members is whether there will be any significant improvement in the government of Wales as a consequence of the business motion. I do not think that there will be. However, I think that there will be some, albeit limited, improvements in the way in which the Welsh Grand Committee will operate.
I ask the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether it would be wise to postpone the debate on Welsh business and allow the Welsh Grand Committee, in clear support of the opinions expressed to the Secretary of State at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, to have its say so that we may have a seemly rather than an unseemly debate in the House.

Mr. Peter Hain: There would have been no need for the debate to take this form had the Secretary of State effectively continued in the spirit of the Welsh parliamentary party and submitted the whole issue to the Welsh Grand Committee. If that had been done, all Welsh Members would have been able to get to grips with the detail and express their views. Having used the Welsh Grand Committee as an effective sounding board, the Secretary of State could then have formulated his proposals on a basis of consensus.
The Government have contrived to have a debate that could run for nearly four hours. Does that mean that they have virtually run out of business for the remainder of the Session and need to fill it with a debate under entirely unsatisfactory circumstances and against a background of deep opposition by virtually all Welsh Members, who feel that the Government are railroading these proposals through without proper consent?
Instead of allowing Welsh Members to discuss the matter properly, the Government simply want a long drawn-out skirmish in the House rather than having to table other business, because they do not have much other business. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to arrive at a consensus, initially through the Welsh parliamentary party and then through the Welsh Grand Committee. That would have concertinaed the process and would have led to a much shorter, crisper debate and could, perhaps, have resolved any outstanding issues. Instead, as will become evident when the matters are discussed, the Secretary of State has unilaterally proceeded against the wishes of the vast majority of


Welsh Opposition Members—if not all—who comprise by far the greatest number of Welsh Members. He is proceeding against our wishes in a way that challenges the democratic relationship between the House and the people of Wales.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is proceeding against our wishes. Perversely, when the Secretary of State met the members of the parliamentary group, he showed that he had much sympathy with the vast majority of our proposals. Is it not even more surprising that he should choose to ignore that opportunity to reach a consensus and instead proceed in a dictatorial fashion?

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and it will be interesting to hear the Secretary of State's answer, or that of the Leader of the House if he intends to reply. The Secretary of State approached that meeting in a conciliatory and informal fashion and listened to all the views expressed at it. There was understanding and a fair consensus, and we thought that on that basis we could get the new arrangements up and running; but the Secretary of State has almost entirely ignored the spirit of the meeting and, using his majority in the Chamber, he seeks to impose these arrangements on us.
If the Secretary of State had chosen the Welsh Grand Committee route, not only would it have shortened the proceedings—that would be an advantage to everyone except perhaps the Government business managers, because it would have made a hole in their day—but it would have allowed us to establish arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee that would have stood the test of time because they would have been based on consensus.
The suspicion must be that the Secretary of State is imposing these arrangements on us because he wants to dodge not just the will of the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Members but the will of the people of Wales. Welsh people do not want a half-baked, jazzed-up Welsh Grand Committee: they want a Welsh Assembly. They want to have the ability to express their views through an elected assembly so that their voices can be heard in a way that the Government have consistently denied them for the past 17 years. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), shakes his head, but he more than any other Conservative Member consistently flouts the wishes of the Welsh people in his behaviour as a Minister and in the way in which he conducts himself in the Chamber in proceeding with the business for which he is responsible.
The Government's action will leave a sour taste in the mouths not only of Welsh Members, other than the one or two Welsh Conservative Back Benchers who are not even in the Chamber—where are they?—but of the people of Wales as a whole. Once again, the Government, who take no interest in their wishes, are flouting those wishes and riding roughshod over them by imposing arrangements that do not have the support of Welsh Members of Parliament.

Dr. John Marek: I should like to follow and take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). We should ask ourselves whether

the proposed changes—if and when we debate them—will improve the standard of decision making in the Principality. I believe that they will not. More paper will be used, more words will be printed and more words will be spoken, but the proposed changes will not make one iota of difference to the quality of decisions. The final arbiter of that will remain the English Tory party in the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath was right. Just six Government Members are present, of whom just one represents a Welsh constituency. The Conservative party has other Welsh Members—

Mr. Paul Flynn: Not for much longer.

Dr. Marek: Where are the Conservative party's other five Welsh Members, even if, as my hon. Friend says, it will probably not have them for much longer? Are even they against the Government's proposed changes? Are they treating the debate with disdain by being absent? What is the explanation for their absence? At the moment, the matter is completely beyond me. Of course Conservative Members know that there is a desire in the Principality for more decisions to be taken there instead of foreign politics and foreign decisions being inflicted on us by people who have no interest whatever in the Principality.
I met the Secretary of State and he knew nothing much about Wales. He has at least taken an interest in it, but only of course during the past six or nine months. That is no substitute for living in the place and knowing it. If one knows a place, one is likely to make better decisions as a result.
Will the changes allow any decisions to be made by the Welsh Grand Committee that it would not have been able to make before? The answer is, of course, no. We know that the Welsh Grand Committee cannot make any decisions.

Mr. Wigley: It is a talking shop.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Committee is a talking shop, and if the Secretary of State's proposals go through, it will still be a talking shop. The changes will not make any difference.
Although I would like to catch your eye in the main debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make it clear that I am profoundly disappointed in this short debate on the business motion. I am not surprised by it, however, because the Tory party does not represent the people of Wales and does not have much regard for them. The motion is merely some cosmetic tissue through which the Government hope they will hoodwink people.
I am sure that not only the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh nationalists will ensure that any such deception is uncovered quickly and that the people of Wales will vote for the party that will return decision making—certainly on local matters, if not on others—to where it rightfully belongs at the next election. There should be subsidiarity down as far as possible—in this case, to the people of Wales, the Principality, the regions and local authorities.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Leader of the House should explain, especially to the Opposition, what happened after the Welsh parliamentary party meeting. The Welsh parliamentary party is a very curious animal. It is defunct for years at a time. It very rarely meets, but is suddenly activated—we activate it. I have been tracing the history of its meetings.
The Welsh parliamentary party met in the mid-1930s when there was an economic crisis, to try to gain some degree of consensus and present a united voice on the economic plight in south Wales to Whitehall and Westminster. It came up with some very interesting and unanimous suggestions. It again met during the war, in 1944, to recommend to the War Cabinet the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales to promote the reconstruction of post-war Wales. It also met once or twice in the 1950s and 1960s to bring to the attention of Ministers the consensual approach to various political activities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who has just walked into the Chamber, is a living embodiment of consensual politics.

Sir Wyn Roberts: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I should like to continue making my point.
The Welsh parliamentary party has therefore just occasionally played a functional role in presenting a case to Ministers. At its recent meeting, a virtually unanimous opinion emerged that we should debate matters first in the Welsh Grand Committee. Given that consensus and the curious function that the parliamentary party plays every once in a while in Welsh-Westminster politics, it is extraordinary that its view should have been not just disregarded but, given the Secretary of State's statement to the media, disregarded within half an hour.
Although we will soon have a chance to debate the orders, I should tell the Secretary of State that we all remember his original statement. I certainly got the impression from it that he was generally open-minded about the shape, character and nature of the revamped Welsh Grand Committee. He invited consultation, and that was the whole tenor of the statement. When some of us wrote to him suggesting variations—I will not raise my suggestion because I have tabled an amendment on it—we received appalling answers. It was quite clear from the two-line replies that the Government had no intention of taking on board interesting variations on the original theme. Indeed, the motions on the Order Paper are exactly the ones that the Government first thought of.
It makes matters worse when one considers that Whitehall and the Government agreed to do something about the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. There has not been any real consultation on the proposals. There is not a shred of evidence that any meaningful point made by any Back Bencher—in an individual, not a partisan, fashion—has been incorporated in the measures.
The Leader of the House must realise the extent of the resentment felt and why the business timetable motion must be opposed. He should tell us what happened after the Welsh parliamentary party meeting and why no meaningful alterations have been made to the orders as a result of hon. Members' representations.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I was also at the Welsh parliamentary party meeting, and at its conclusion I thought that the Secretary of State had taken on board some of the points that were made. He left the room saying that the meeting had been helpful, useful and businesslike. That was the kind of language that he used. Within half an hour he had obviously gone back on everything that he had said, including, "I shall consider further the points that you have made to me."
For all his faults—and they are legion—the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), would have at least said straight away whether he was with or against us. The Secretary of State handled the meeting with rather unclever deceit. We are not children; we know what is going on in politics, and we are rather taken aback at his attitude. The people of Wales will not be treated like children.
All of a sudden there is an indecent haste to try to do something about the Welsh Grand Committee, which has taken the same form for a long time. Many of us have argued about its form over the years. Apparently, nothing was to happen to it. Then, suddenly, experiments in Scotland were put in train.
There has been a mobile press conference in Scotland, attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and others. I hope that the Secretary of State does not think that by rushing the motion through with almost indecent haste and not even allowing a modicum of proper, reasoned discussion—such discussion was evident at the Welsh parliamentary party meeting—he can steamroller us into a similar format to Scotland. That will not do. I understand why the Government want it. They are not very welcome in Wales at present and there is no other way of getting the Prime Minister and other Ministers into various parts of Wales without this particular platform.
I must make it clear to the Secretary of State that we are serious about the purposes of the Welsh Grand Committee. We are here to represent the people of Wales; he is not. He made plain his disdain for the people of Wales in the manner that he insulted those representing them.
There are two fundamental points that should be included in the Standing Orders, but I shall confine myself to one of them—the question of dealing with specifically Welsh legislation. Over the past couple of years, on at least two occasions I have had the bitter experience of being in Standing Committee with hon. Members from the other side of the border who have voted down our amendments. I have respect for each and every one of them, but they knew nothing about the argument; they simply signed their correspondence and voted against every amendment. I had the bitter experience of losing one amendment on the casting vote of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I found it rather galling that the people of Wales should be deprived of the right to Welsh jury trials by the vote of a Member representing a Cheshire constituency. It is not good enough.
Today, we have an appropriate vehicle to amend the Standing Orders and bring them up to current standards. The Government's proposals will do nothing other than exacerbate an already bad position.

Mr. David Hanson: I worry greatly about the motion. I genuinely want to know from the Leader of the House why there is such undue haste to discuss the matter. I have several reasons for wanting to know that. First—and this is not meant to be a party political point—the Conservative party in Wales starts from a position of fundamental weakness; it has just six Members of Parliament. The last time my local authority went to the polls, only three Conservatives were elected. The Conservative party does not have the support of the people of Wales for the policies that it is carrying out in Wales.
We can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of the United Kingdom Parliament and the position of English Members of Parliament voting on Welsh issues and vice versa. The point is that the Conservative party in Wales does not have the moral authority to impose its policies on the people of Wales. Whenever it has gone to the polls, it has been beaten—in general elections, Euro-elections and local elections. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government, when they consider the development of the Welsh Grand Committee, to take with them those who represent Welsh constituencies. I say that not because of some ethereal, far-distant notion, but because we represent the people of Wales. We have been sent to this House to argue the case for the people of Wales and we have a majority in doing so. Whatever the Government think, at the end of the day they do not have a majority of Welsh votes or seats at local, national or European level. Therefore, our majority and moral authority are important and appropriate consultation is important.
It would have been appropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss these issues prior to their coming before the House. Any amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and others will be voted on and defeated, possibly by the votes of Members of Parliament representing seats in England and Scotland. It is important that there is consultation if we are to have a Welsh Grand Committee that is meaningful, that challenges the Executive, that can discuss and reflect Welsh opinion and that actually has an important role, irrespective of our wish in the long term for an Assembly or, in some cases, a Parliament.
I am worried because the Government do not seem able even to let the Welsh Grand Committee discuss its own future and establishment—so what use will it be in discussing the big issues that affect our constituents, such as value added tax, local government spending, democracy, quangos, trusts and housing, education and national health service policies? If the Government will not even let it decide how it is set up and how it arranges its discussions, what is the point of hon. Members going to the Committee to argue matters? We shall know that ultimately the Government are not interested in what the Committee says and does.
It is important that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State reconsider the motion and whether to proceed with it. The Government should take Opposition Members with them on the motion. That is important for democracy and for moral authority. It is also important for ensuring that the Welsh Grand Committee works and is effective. The trust will be broken if the Government force through the motion tonight without further discussion.

Mr. Ron Davies: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have gathered from the flavour of this brief debate the strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches.
I welcome the speech of the Leader of the House, which I thought was conciliatory. As I am sure my hon. Friends will have noted, his approach contrasts sharply with that of the Secretary of State for Wales.
It is clear that all the parties are unhappy with the way in which the business motion has been brought before the House. Even at this late stage, I ask either the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House to say whether the Government are prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider the Standing Orders that will govern its own proceedings. That is hardly a revolutionary request. All we are asking is that the Committee be allowed to consider the Standing Orders that will apply to its own proceedings. Will either of the right hon. Gentlemen respond to that point now?

Mr. Newton: I had intended to respond when the hon. Gentleman had concluded his remarks. Indeed, I have one or two other things to say. In view of what I believe to be the desirability of the changes and the fairly lengthy period during which there was a good deal of consultation, I think that it is right to expect the House to proceed with this business tonight and put the changes in place. While I accept that hon. Members want to go further, the changes are an improvement in the Welsh Grand Committee and will offer opportunities and advantages to the people of Wales and those who represent them.

Mr. Davies: In effect, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will not allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider its own Standing Orders. I hope that he will reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), that there are 38 Welsh Members of Parliament, 32 of whom want the opportunity to discuss the Standing Orders in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to allow us to do that.

Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene again briefly. One important point that is relevant to this line of argument is that these are not the Standing Orders of the Welsh Grand Committee; they are the Standing Orders of the House governing the arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee. That is why the matter must necessarily be decided by the House and why it is appropriate that it should be debated by the House.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the error made by the Secretary of State when I wrote to him on the matter some time ago. I fully understand, as do all my hon. Friends, that the Government are not prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to resolve these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, these are Standing Orders of the House. What we want is the opportunity to debate them in the Welsh Grand Committee. Obviously, at the end of the day they have to be approved by the House, but why on earth are the Government so set in their determination to prevent us from even discussing those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee? That is the question that I put to the Secretary of State and to the Leader of the House, but I have not yet had a satisfactory answer.
The business motion restricts our opportunity to have a proper examination of the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Will the Leader of the House tell us why he is so anxious to restrict debate and to prevent us from even discussing the Standing Orders in the Welsh Grand Committee? Will he answer that specific question? Why cannot we even discuss the proposed changes in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Newton: Rather than allowing the debate to become a question-and-answer session, it would be more appropriate for me to make further remarks in my winding-up speech in a moment or two.

Mr. Davies: This is a question-and-question session, not a question-and-answer session. We are putting questions to the Leader of the House and we are not getting answers. If he is not prepared to give us an answer or to say, even at this late stage, that the Government will relent and will allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider those matters, why on earth does he not at least give us a reason? What is so wrong about us being able to debate those matters? We have not had a satisfactory answer on that point.
We are angry about the business motion for this reason. Although the debate on the Standing Orders would have been allowed to run its full course in the Welsh Grand Committee, on the Floor of the House, it will be restricted by the business motion.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Leader of the House gave one answer to explain why he did not wish the debate to take place in the Welsh Grand Committee? He said that he thought that it would delay proceedings and that he wanted to move on. Is not the truth that if the Secretary of State had acceded to the wishes of the parliamentary group, so that we could have debated the matter in the Welsh Grand Committee, it would have been dealt with by now and the changes in the Standing Orders would already have been delivered? It is not we but the Government who are delaying the procedures.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend understands the usual channels in a way to which I could not possibly aspire. However, I recall a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff in 1993, when we urged the Government to accept the changes.
I contrast the procedures that we are being invited to follow, by means of the business motion, with the procedures that were followed when the Welsh Grand Committee was established. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke earlier, is an historian of great note. He drew my attention to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Procedure, which met in July 1958, when the Welsh Grand Committee was established. Our debate later will concern amendments to those Standing Orders. I refer to three brief points of note.
First, the Committee received evidence from Mr. Ness Edwards, who recommended the establishment of a Welsh Grand Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Hon. Members ask who he was. He was a former Member of Parliament for Caerphilly; he was my predecessor but two. He was a man of great distinction and I think that it

is necessary that I, as one of his successors, should try to take forward the advantages that he brought to us as Welsh citizens. It was his submission to the Procedure Committee that established the Welsh Grand Committee as we know it now.
Secondly, it is interesting to look at the Committee's proceedings. The Welsh Grand Committee was established by means of a detailed cross-party examination of the submissions. The business motion tonight will prevent Welsh Members and the Procedure Committee from undertaking that detailed, cross-party examination of the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee, although that is just the sort of examination that is necessary to create a consensus. If the Leader of the House has a moment or two to spare from his onerous tasks, he will do well to read the proceedings of the Procedure Committee in 1958.
Thirdly, the Welsh Grand Committee was established before the office of Secretary of State for Wales. Since 1964, under Conservative and Labour Governments, there has been enormous administrative devolution and the Welsh Office has grown beyond all recognition. Surely, if there was a case in 1958 for a properly structured Welsh Grand Committee, there is an even stronger case in 1996 for a proper Welsh Grand Committee to examine matters relating to Wales and to monitor the procedures of the Welsh Office.
We oppose the business motion because, despite the assertion made by the Leader of the House, the change to the Standing Orders has not been the subject of proper consultation. I do not know what the Leader of the House means by consultation, but I know what I mean. I believe that consultation means that people, in good faith, make proposals for change, that those proposals are discussed and that when it is possible, on the basis of that discussion, agreement is reached. We have not had such consultation.
I do not know what the Leader of the House has been told by the Secretary of State for Wales. I can assure him that 32 Welsh Members have had no meaningful consultation on the proposed changes. I hope that the Leader of the House now fully understands that there is no agreement on the matter between Welsh Members and the Secretary of State. The wishes of the majority of Welsh Members have been ignored so far. If the business motion is accepted, they will be prevented from expressing their views later this evening.
Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the Welsh parliamentary party. We met on 20 February, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer an explanation for what occurred. By all accounts, it was a very cordial meeting, apart from the fact that the Government Whip was excluded from the proceedings because he had not sought an invitation. It was a matter of great embarrassment to him, but it gave great merriment to the rest of us. The meeting then proceeded in a cordial and good-natured way. At the end, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) pointed out, the Secretary of State left the room saying, "Yes, I shall consider the matter. I hope that if any of you have further submissions to make, you will make them and I shall give the matter further consideration."
Within an hour, I was telephoned by a BBC journalist, who said that the Secretary of State had given an interview in which he had announced that the proposed


changes to the Standing Orders would not be considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, but would be taken on the Floor of the House. I ask the Leader of the House a direct question. Does he think that that is the way in which the matter should be conducted between the Government and the Opposition? Does he think that that is a fit, appropriate and courteous way for a Secretary of State to conduct himself, especially when he does not represent a Welsh constituency and can muster, at best, only six Members out of 38?
I wrote to the Secretary of State on the following day, 21 February, to express my concern, to ask him to reconsider his decision and to ask him to allow the matter to go to the Welsh Grand Committee. I still have not had a reply from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House think that that is an appropriate way for one of his Cabinet colleagues to conduct business? I certainly do not.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Secretary of State had taken on board all the points that were made at the meeting of the parliamentary party and if he had said, "I have met all the points, so there is no need to go through the Welsh Grand Committee; I am willing to change the proposals to take those points on board," he would have made a comprehensible defence? To close the door, to refuse to back the changes that were asked for at the meeting and to support the business motion is, to all intents and purposes, to tell us that it was a total waste of time to have the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party.

Mr. Davies: Very much so. It is my personal regret that the Secretary of State did not have the courage or the courtesy to tell us that to our faces at the meeting in Norman Shaw. He must have been set in his mind then, so why on earth did he not have the courtesy or the courage to tell us that that was the case rather than sneaking out and giving a BBC interview half an hour later?
I also oppose the business motion because it institutionalises conflict. I hope that the Leader of the House now understands that if we had been able to deal with the matter in the way that we wished, we could have reached agreement. There is a need to reform the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee; everyone understands that. As a result of the business motion, there will be unnecessary confrontation with the Opposition. The procedures of the House are rigid and formal. We shall not be able to have the flexibility—the give and take—that we could have had in the Welsh Grand Committee. The business motion denies us that opportunity. Undoubtedly, the motion that will be put to the House at 10 o'clock will not command the broad support of Welsh Members. Indeed, it is a missed opportunity to reform the Welsh Grand Committee.
Those arguments underscore the fundamental divide between Welsh Members who represent Welsh constituencies and the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that Opposition Members have a genuine desire to improve democracy in Wales. but the business motion prevents us from doing so. There is a genuine desire to have better and more accountable government in Wales. The business motion will prevent us from having that

debate. There is a genuine desire to have more efficient government, less corrupt government and a Government who reflect the wishes of the people. The business motion will prevent us from developing that argument. There are four hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who represent Welsh constituencies, but it is quite clear that they do not share our aspirations.
As an Opposition, we have always been constructive in this matter. To my knowledge, as far back as 8 March 1993, when the Welsh Grand Committee met in Cardiff to discuss the governance of Wales, the Opposition suggested to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), how we could restructure the Welsh Grand Committee. We were then debating the reorganisation of local government. We asked the Government why on earth, if they wished to proceed with it, they did not put the matter before the Welsh Grand Committee. Their response some months later was to deny Welsh Members of Parliament by repealing Standing Order No. 86—which is what the motion before us does—and to prevent Welsh Members from sitting on the Committee, which, above all else, was discussing local government in Wales.
Instead of putting Welsh Members on the Committee, the Government included luminaries such as the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who came to something of a sticky end, for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg)—a fine record he has in Westminster—and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who had no Welsh interests apart from a property that he owned in Powys.
The debate is not about devolution, which is not on the agenda tonight. The Government know our position on that, which is clear and unequivocal. The debate is about reforming the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee. We want workable, meaningful changes. We want it to be given proper powers, not only to debate and to question the Government—when we do that, the Government can run away from the arguments, as they have done tonight—but to decide matters. If there is a difference between the Government and the Opposition on the handling of the Welsh Grand Committee, it is down to that.
The Government currently hold all the cards. They decide all the matters and want to keep the cards in their hands. They make the arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee. They control its agenda and always have the last word in it. They refuse it the power to decide any matters. The business motion will curtail debate to about two hours, but that is not enough time to explore those matters, particularly on the Floor of the House. The motion will deprive Welsh Members of Parliament of any opportunity to seek a consensus on how the procedures of the Committee could be improved. Thanks to the motion, there will be artificial votes. Those of us who sit on the Welsh Grand Committee, who represent Welsh constituencies and have a vested interest in ensuring that we get it right tonight, will be outvoted by Conservative Members, who will be whipped at 10 o'clock to deny us our rights.
For those reasons, we oppose the business motion and shall seek to divide the House.

Mr. Newton: I thought that the debate started rather promisingly, when the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I thank her for this—spent a great deal of


time saying what a reasonable man I was. However, it has gone steadily downhill from there, but I shall try to remain reasonable in my brief winding-up speech.
I do not accept, however grateful I am for the remarks about me, the contrast that has been drawn with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It is certainly not a breach of confidence—I do not think that anybody would mind me saying this—to say that being, as I am, quite keen to see this particular improvement, as I see it, in the procedures of the House advanced as soon as possible, I had a sketch plan of business a week before Christmas. I offered my right hon. Friend the opportunity to proceed with the changes that he had outlined—which, generally, appeared to have been welcomed—to the Standing Orders that govern the Welsh Grand Committee. He declined, saying that he did not want the opportunity to debate the business at that time, precisely because he wished to go through a process of discussion and consultation with other Welsh Members of Parliament.
I understand that my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 14 December, explaining exactly what changes he proposed to introduce, offering a meeting to discuss them and asking their agreement. Thereafter, there was a considerable exchange of correspondence, and, as has been acknowledged, something rare happened: there was a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party—a gathering of all hon. Members who represent constituencies in Wales—which my right hon. Friend attended. I accept that there appears to have been some misunderstanding in the wake of that meeting. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend had always made it clear that changes to the Standing Orders of the House were matters for debate on the Floor of the House. That appears to be the main point of disagreement.

Mr. Ron Davies: Whatever faults we might have as Welsh Members of Parliament, I can assure the Leader of the House that we never let the Secretary of State leave any of our meetings under any misapprehension of our true feelings. May I clarify one point and ensure that Hansard records what happened? It is quite correct that the Secretary of State wrote to me and other hon. Members on 14 December, but the Leader of the House has just suggested that, in that letter, the Secretary of State offered a meeting. That is not correct.
If the Leader of the House consults the Secretary of State and looks at the correspondence, he will find that the Secretary of State did not write to me, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who represents the Liberal Democrats, until 31 January. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point, because that is very important.

Mr. Newton: I understand—I gather that it is my right hon. Friend's recollection—that my right hon. Friend offered a meeting at that stage, but if there has been any misunderstanding about that, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to clear it up when he speaks in the debate, which I hope that we shall get on to before much longer.

Mr. Llwyd: On the question of misunderstanding, the Leader of the House is at a disadvantage, because he was not at that meeting. I was, and I think that we all have a similar recollection. We all understand that, for any effective change to be introduced, there has to be a change in the Standing Orders of the House. We need not be experts in "Erskine May" to work that one out. The point is that the Secretary of State left the meeting with the firm impression that he was considering actively all the points that had been raised, none of which now appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Newton: We are, are we not, in effect talking about two different things. There seem to be differences of perception about the meeting, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, I did not have the advantage—if that is the correct word—of attending. My right hon. Friend's understanding, if I may speak for him further, is that he had consistently made clear his expectation that the matter would be debated on the Floor of the House.
Clearly, there are also a number of other disagreements about what should be in the Standing Orders, on which, of course, my right hon. Friend has reflected, but that is a somewhat different matter. Of course it is the case, as it was in relation to the changes in the Standing Orders for the Scottish Grand Committee, that some hon. Members would wish to go further than my right hon. Friend proposed or make more extensive changes to the Standing Orders, but it has certainly been my understanding, and, I think, that of my right hon. Friend, that there was general support for changes that at least go as far as the ones that have been proposed.

Mr. Alun Michael: With respect, the Leader of the House quibbles on the wrong point. Everyone understands that the Standing Orders are a matter for the decision of the House, but the suggestion was that there should be proper discussion and consultation by the Secretary of State in the Welsh Grand Committee before proposals were brought to the Floor of the House. It is a sign of the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), Labour Members and other Opposition Members that we were prepared to meet the Secretary of State in the Welsh parliamentary party and to suggest a proper and sensible debate, and did not reject his right to make suggestions in the first place.

Mr. Newton: Given that we have been accused of resisting debate or attempting to muzzle Members of Parliament representing Wales, I must make the point that all members of the Welsh Grand Committee, by definition, are Members of the House. There is nothing to prevent any Member who wishes to do so from seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate that I hope will take place. We have provided in the business motion, although some of the time for debate has now been consumed by the debate on that motion, significantly more time than would normally be provided for debate on such matters, precisely in order to enable Welsh Members to have a proper debate.
I believe that we should accept the business motion and get on with that debate.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 162,Noes 61.

Division No. 70]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Amess, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Harris, David


Baldry, Tony
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hawkins, Nick


Bellingham, Henry
Hawksley, Warren


Body, Sir Richard
Heald, Oliver


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Booth, Hartley
Hendry, Charles


Boswell, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hicks, Robert


Bowis, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brandreth, Gyles
Horam, John


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Clappison, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coe, Sebastian
Key, Robert



Congdon, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Conway, Derek
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Couchman, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Legg, Barry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Lidington, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
Lord, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Luff, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dover, Den
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, lain
Maclean, FH Hon David


Dunn, Bob
McLoughlin, Patrick


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Moate, Sir Roger


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Page, Richard


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Paice, James


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Richards, Rod


Gillan, Cheryl
Riddick, Graham


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Robathan, Andrew


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, lain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Sykes, John
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Michael Bates.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hutton, John


Barron, Kevin
Ingram, Adam


Battle, John
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, Andrew F
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Benton, Joe
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bermingham, Gerald
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bradley, Keith
McWilliam, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mahon, Alice


Burden, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D N
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Corston, Jean
Pike, Peter L


Cousins, Jim
Pope, Greg


Cummings, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Rowlands, Ted


Dafis, Cynog
Skinner, Dennis



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Soley, Clive


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Spearing, Nigel


Dewar, Donald
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Dowd, Jim
Timms, Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Wicks, Malcolm


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Fyfe, Maria
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Peter Hain.


Hoyle, Doug

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That, at this day's sitting—

(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and

(2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.

Welsh Business

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Minister to move the motion on Welsh business, I should say that debate will take place jointly on the motion and on the various amendments selected by Madam Speaker. The amendments will be moved formally at 10 pm.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That—

(1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;
(2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";
(3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and
(4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.
A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)

(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
(2) The business of the committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));
(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
(d) Bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills));
(e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and
(f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).

(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.

(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.


C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)

(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

(6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.


D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)

(1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

(3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
(4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
E. Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)
(1) A motion, of which at least 10 days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and


if, on the question being put, not fewer than 20 Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:
Provided that no such notice shall be given until the Bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.
(2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the Bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the Bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.
(3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a Bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)

(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.

G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)
(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past 10 o'clock, or at half-past 10 o'clock and between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;
(e) to consider specified Bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;


and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.


(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.
(3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.

(5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

The motion gives effect to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 30 November for extending and enhancing the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. The Committee will be able to deal with a wider range of business, not only here in Westminster but at a range of locations in the Principality and as a result will play a more prominent role in the parliamentary consideration of Welsh affairs.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Newton: I see that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is once again determined to let me get no more than one sentence out at a time.

Mr. Wigley: The Leader of the House will recall that I did not intervene in his last speech.

Mr. Newton: indicated assent.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. He told the House that the orders put into effect the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Wales before Christmas. Given that he is putting into effect exactly what was announced without taking account of any of the changes that have been discussed since, what was the point of the play that he made earlier of the discussion period? What is the point of pretending that any of the Opposition's points have been taken on board when he is merely putting into practice exactly what was intended three or four months ago?

Mr. Newton: I am reluctant to be drawn into re-running the previous debate, though I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was one of the few who did not seek to intervene even in my relatively brief winding-up speech. The sensible course would be to proceed with the debate and no doubt, either in relation to the amendments or in his speech, the hon. Gentleman—who has fixed views on the matter and wants the Welsh Grand Committee to be not a Committee of the Westminster Parliament but a quite different arrangement—will be able to put his views to the House.
The new Standing Order A re-enacts the existing provisions relating to the composition of the Welsh Grand Committee, lists the full range of business with which the Committee will be able to deal and provides for Ministers who represent constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom to attend meetings and take part in debates. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already told the House—and I assume that this will be welcome in Wales, as it certainly should be—both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have indicated that they propose to attend the Committee under that provision.
Standing Order B seeks to add to the opportunities for Welsh Members to question Welsh Office Ministers by providing for an additional Welsh Office Question Time lasting for half an hour at certain meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee. I am never quite sure whether comparisons with Scotland go down well, but that procedure has undoubtedly proved a great success in the Scottish Grand Committee since its introduction a year ago.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between Wales and Scotland. The previous debate was about how we should make decisions about the Welsh Grand Committee, but when are we going to decide about the Committee changes themselves? Why, after 17 years, have the Government suddenly seen the light and decided to make changes to both the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees? What has spurred on the Government's interest in changing procedures? What has changed the Government's mind?

Mr. Newton: Nothing has changed the Government's mind. It is part of our constant search to improve the way in which Parliament does business. When we changed the procedures of the House more generally, in the fashion to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred—my right hon. Friend the Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was present then—and discussed and implemented large parts of the Jopling proposals, no one asked why we did not do it 15 years ago. Equally, I do not recall anyone arguing that in relation to Scottish Standing Orders, the Scottish Grand Committee, the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee or the improvements that we have been making to the way in which legislation is considered. We are simply seeking to improve the way in which the United Kingdom Parliament responds to the changing perceptions and circumstances of the way in which the House and its Committees do their business.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: One immediate improvement that the right hon. Gentleman might like to put in train is to allow Welsh to be spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee. A couple of years ago, we had lengthy deliberations on the Welsh Language Act 1993, which culminated in the Government saying that Welsh had equal validity with English. The Government are denying the people of Wales the chance of making the revamped Committee of some relevance to large parts of Wales. That is an insult to the people of Wales.

Mr. Newton: The amendment of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) relates to that. I shall talk about the matter in a moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to advance his points during the debate.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has been going round Wales saying that the proposals are an alternative to a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, as I have suggested, will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has


muttered from a sedentary position that he does not accept that proposition. I am sure that ways will be found to put that point to him directly during the debate.
Standing Order C allows Welsh Members to initiate "short debates" in which speeches will be limited to five minutes or less on topics related to Wales. A Minister will reply to each "short debate", which will allow more detailed consideration of a specific question. It should be possible to cover at least two topics in the time available.
Standing Order D will allow a Minister from the Welsh Office or another Government Department to make a statement about a matter relating to Wales at the beginning of a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Again, I should emphasise that, as is the case with Scotland, whether a statement should be made to the Welsh Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House is necessarily a matter of judgment in each case, but there would be significant advantages not least for Welsh Members in, for example, moving the annual statement on public expenditure in Wales into the Welsh Grand Committee. It would give Welsh Members a better opportunity to question the Secretary of State, as well as relieving one part of the pressure of business on the Floor at what tends to be a congested time in the Session. It is now the practice for the Scottish public expenditure statement to be made to the Scottish Grand Committee each December and that arrangement has worked to the advantage of Scottish Members and the House as a whole.
I can pass quickly over Standing Orders E and F, since they do no more than restate those provisions of the existing Standing Orders that govern the Welsh Grand Committee's consideration of Bills and matters relating exclusively to Wales.
Standing Order G has three principal purposes. First, it enables the Welsh Grand Committee to hold meetings in Cardiff or anywhere else in Wales. The Government recognise that such meetings need to be held in premises that meet the requirements of the Committee in every respect and I can give an assurance that we will not ask the House to approve a meeting in any venue that has not been thoroughly evaluated by the House authorities and found to be suitable.

Mr. Ron Davies: To return to the question of the Welsh language, the Leader of the House will know that many of the venues that are being suggested have translation equipment. It would be perfectly natural for him to agree that an experiment could be undertaken, so that when the Welsh Grand Committee met in chambers where translation equipment was available, Welsh could be used. If the amendments are defective, which we would understand, are the Government prepared to accept the principle of Welsh being used in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Newton: May I return to that? I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will comment on it, but it would probably be more helpful to the House if I completed my brief description of the Standing Orders before doing so.
The second purpose of Standing Order G is to provide for a calendar specifying the dates, times and places of meetings of the Committee, together with the business to he taken at each meeting. If the House agrees to the motion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Wales hopes to table a motion in the near future setting out a proposed timetable of meetings for the rest of this Session.
Thirdly, that part of the Standing Order gives a further opportunity for Welsh Members to raise matters on behalf of their constituents by providing for a half-hour Adjournment debate to be held at the conclusion of the business set down for each sitting of the Committee, as happens at the end of each sitting of the House. In addition, the motion makes some purely consequential amendments to two existing Standing Orders.
Finally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr Davies) pressed me on the possible use of the Welsh language in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee—the hon. Member for Caernarfon also pressed me on that on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. A number of representations were undoubtedly made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on that point—my right hon. Friend has made that clear to me—in the course of what turned out to be the somewhat contentious consultations that preceded the bringing forward of this motion.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon knows, even though he gave us some trouble over it—not for the first time, and probably not for the last—the Government have given the Welsh language consistent support for many years. It was this Government who took through Parliament the Welsh Language Act 1993, which establishes the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. So, I can say straightforwardly that I certainly do not dismiss the point that was raised. However, it is a matter for the House and not the Government to decide. We have to recognise that it raises a significant question of principle since, apart from a few Norman-French survivals used principally for announcing the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament in the other place and one or two other purposes, English is and has been for centuries the sole language of the United Kingdom Parliament—[Interruption.] This is a serious point and I hope that hon. Members will let me continue.
Clearly, there are implications not only for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, but for its proceedings here in Westminster, for the Scottish Grand Committee and, indeed, for the Chamber of the House of Commons. A number of practical issues would also need to be tackled. The hon. Member for Caerphilly commented on one—the availability of translation facilities—and others include whether Committee papers, Order Papers, Hansard and the like should be produced in both languages.
It seems to me that everyone should agree that allowing the use of Welsh at Grand Committee meetings in Wales would be a major change in parliamentary practice. It would not be sensible for the House to contemplate taking a decision on such an important and potentially significant matter unless every issue that it raises has been properly investigated. The Government believe, therefore, that the appropriate course would be to ask the Procedure Committee to consider the matter and report to the House in due course. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues

are well equipped to do so and I hope that they will be prepared to look into that question for us and give the House the benefit of their considered advice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I had better give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on the Opposition Front Bench first. Then I will submit to all the other interventions.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Leader of the House has made an important statement. I am glad that he acknowledges the seriousness of the matters that we have put to him—in contrast to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who was very scornful in his comments. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to allow the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter. Since there is some urgency—given the Government's motion—about getting the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Wales, will he agree one further concession? Would he expect the Procedure Committee to report before the Welsh Grand Committee next meets in Wales in a chamber with translation equipment? That is taking the argument a stage further. The right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable concession on the part of the Government. If he were prepared to go that one step further, he would find—for once—enormous support for the announcement that he has made.

Mr. Newton: Conciliatory as I always try to be—I am certainly seeking to be tonight—I am not sure that I can take that further step, or certainly not off the cuff.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: I am in danger of being made to sound more tetchy than I wish to be if I am hardly allowed to get a sentence out.
I cannot go as far as that. Perhaps it would be unwise even to encourage such thoughts for two reasons. First, I want to get the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to the suggestion of moving at that pace. Secondly, I suspect that that issue should properly be dealt with on a more considered time scale than the hon. Gentleman suggests, unless the first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales is to be unduly delayed.
In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is in the middle of a substantial inquiry into the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance tonight and I doubt that I will be able to do so at a later stage. We will certainly not encourage delay in the examination of the matter, however.

Mr. Wigley: Does not that last comment show that the Leader of the House is just kicking the matter into touch? If the Select Committee on Procedure is involved in long-running business that will take time and then has to consider the ins and outs of the question, it will be months—certainly the summer recess—before we get any further and, no doubt, some time in the autumn before a proposal is made.
On the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments—I tried to intervene earlier—there is a precedent, so he need not make all that fuss about procedures. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, chaired by Leo Abse, addressed this issue when it inquired into the establishment of the Welsh language fourth television channel. The Committee met in Caernarfon—at the weekend, I spoke to the people who prepared the simultaneous translation equipment for that meeting—and there was a translation of the proceedings, as necessary, for the official record.
Has the Leader of the House done his research on this matter? The principle is there and it has been accepted. The concept was accepted for a Select Committee, so why on earth is it not going to be used for the Grand Committee? Is this just a deliberate attempt by the Government to go contrary to the indications of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which says that public business can be undertaken in either language in Wales—and I intend to undertake it in Welsh?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to me. For once, I feel better treated by the Opposition Front Bench, which has at least acknowledged that what I have suggested is a conciliatory gesture. I am not attempting to kick this issue into the long grass, nor am I resting on mechanical points, such as whether the facilities are available. I am making the serious point that this issue has potentially large implications that should be properly examined. It is the kind of point which hon. Members would normally expect the Procedure Committee to examine properly before such changes are made.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House look at the amendment that has been selected—which seems to be the most modest of the amendments tabled about the language? It asks that when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales, and only in Wales, both languages can be used where translation equipment is available. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said, there is a precedent for this and there are no difficulties for the House in accepting the amendment.
If the Committee meets in Westminster or elsewhere, great practical obstacles and difficulties will be in the way. There is a precedent for what is before the House tonight and it is a modest request. If it is not accepted, the House will be guilty of saying to the people of Wales what it has been saying for centuries: that the Welsh language is not worthy of consideration; that it is a second-rate language that should not be heard in the House. The Government, in the Welsh Language Act 1993, said that they wanted to elevate the language to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant so far, but hon. Members are making small speeches instead of interventions. Interventions should be brief and to the point.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: rose—

Mr. Newton: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman before I reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). In the spirit of your comment, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if the attitude of the Government were the attitude that he has just attributed to them, they would not have passed the Welsh Language Act in the first place and I would not have made the suggestion about the Procedure Committee tonight.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Leader of the House realise that the suspicion is so great because it took so long for the Conservative party to come round to the idea of the Welsh Language Act 1993, on which there was unity everywhere else in Wales? Does he not realise that the translation facilities are quite simple? Is it not an irony that we have had a meeting of the all-party British-German parliamentary group at South Glamorgan county hall and debated issues quite competently and easily in both languages, but we apparently cannot agree to have a debate in Welsh and in English when the facilities are available for translation?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add much to that point. I have made it clear that I am resting not on what I might call the mechanical difficulties, but on what I take to be the genuine and potentially large issues that must be addressed in the way in which I have suggested.

Mr. Dafis: rose—

Mr. Newton: Given the background to this debate, everyone facing me wishes to make a speech. Therefore, I must make some progress in my speech so that they have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Dafis: Only in England would one expect such a big deal to be made about a simple matter: bilingual provision. I shall explain to the Leader of the House how commonplace it is in Wales for this sort of thing to happen and how easy it is to provide instantaneous translation equipment. I differentiate myself by the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). It is not where there is provision for translation that this should be made possible—provision for translation should always be made available whenever the Committee meets in Wales. It is perfectly easily done and it is something that is familiar to us.
I ask the Leader of the House a question about the referral of the matter to the Procedure Committee: why was it not possible for the Secretary of State to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee as soon as it was suggested that this might be part of the provisions?

Mr. Newton: I do not know exactly when the suggestion was made. However, I know that the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party—this curious animal that I have learned of for the first time in the lead-up to these discussions—took place on 20 February and today is 11 March. Within less than three weeks of that meeting, at which that suggestion would have been made, I have come to the House with the Standing Orders and with what the Opposition Front Bench has described as conciliatory remarks on the consideration of this issue. I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has said about the availability of facilities, which I suspect is due largely to the fact that we have passed the Welsh Language Act 1993.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure my right hon. Friend that he is absolutely right in saying that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, because certain points must be considered further. For example, if a speech is made in Welsh, should it be recorded officially in Welsh, or should the translation be the recorded version, in accordance with the usual procedures of the House? Overall, I am sure that the electorate in Wales will welcome my right hon. Friend's decision that his mind is not closed on this issue and that he is seeking further advice in this regard.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I referred—albeit briefly; perhaps I ought to have made more of it—to how Order Papers and Hansard reports of the proceedings would be dealt with. That is a good illustration of the sorts of question that need to be addressed and thought through before we make changes of the kind that are being urged on me tonight.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys môn): rose—

Mr. Newton: Is there some sort of Welsh nationalist policy that all hon. Members have to intervene before I complete my speech?

Mr. Jones: The Leader of the House has referred to the conciliatory measure. Will he tell us whether he has taken a view on the desirability of the use of Welsh in proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee? In other words, is he coming to this issue from the positive aspect that he would like to see the opportunity for Welsh to be used, but he wants the Procedure Committee to confirm whether it is feasible?

Mr. Newton: I have made a somewhat different point from simply considering the feasibility of the use of Welsh. I think that it would be appropriate, with an issue of this kind, for the Procedure Committee to consider the feasibility of the issue and some of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, and also the possible long-term and wider implications of going down this path. That is not unreasonable. Indeed, it is normal—as Labour Members have emphasised—to try to proceed as far as possible with this kind of change through the work of an all-party committee, such as the Procedure Committee, and seek to establish the widest possible consensus, even though complete consensus cannot always be achieved, as is obvious from tonight's debate.

Mr. Llwyd: Not on this side.

Mr. Newton: The suggestion has been made constructively and in good faith. The proposals contained in this motion preserve all the existing powers of the Welsh Grand Committee and give it a significant range of additional functions—they do not detract in any way from the rights of Welsh Members to raise issues on the Floor of the House, in Welsh questions, in Adjournment debates and the like. However, they provide new opportunities that will improve the way in which Parliament deals with Welsh business and bring Parliament closer to the people of Wales. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Opposition Members welcome the concession made by the Leader of the House. I do not know whether it was done off the cuff or with aforethought but, whichever way it was, we welcome the decision to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee because it is the first concession of which we have seen any sign in our dealings on modernising the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee. I shall return to that point later.

Mr. Newton: I am in danger of, as it were, breaching my own comments by intervening so soon, but I feel justified in doing so in the context of the evening as a whole to say that, as must have been obvious, my remarks were not made off the cuff. They were made after discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who very much shared my view that that point should be examined, and represented, in that sense, part of his response to the consultation.

Mr. Morgan: I accept everything that the Leader of the House has said, but ask for further clarification, especially in the light of his last remark. Will he, as Leader of the House, refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, or will the Secretary of State do so?

Mr. Newton: I am not aware of a specific mechanism, but I plan to draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for those points of clarification.
A decision has obviously been made to take all five groups of amendments together in the debate, so that any hon. Member who speaks may choose whether to discuss the spirit of the amendments or speak to one amendment; we will make different choices about that. It is a leek soup and mutton stew of a debate, mixed together, which may make for some untidiness but means that we can finish by 10 pm without much difficulty.

Mr. Flynn: I apologise for intervening. I welcome the Government's concession. Would it be useful for us to agree that none of the other recommendations on the Standing Orders will be implemented until the Procedure Committee has reported on the status of the Welsh language?

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for that suggestion, on which my hon. Friend may have the opportunity to expand, especially as one amendment stands in his name only.
The spirit of the debate will determine whether the new proposals work—whether they are regarded as acceptable on both sides of the House and throughout Wales. If the House and the people of Wales see the proposals for amending and improving the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee rammed down the throats of the Opposition Members who represent a very large majority of Welsh constituencies, it does not bode well for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee. That is why we ask for various other safeguards in the amendments that we have tabled.
There has been a little bit of give on the Welsh language issue. If there is no further give tonight, it will show that there will be no give in future—that the Government do not propose to take the Welsh Grand Committee any more seriously than previously and that the Committee will remain an impotent talking shop, unable to represent the views of the people of Wales on what legislative action is taken by the Government as it impacts on the people of Wales.
The fears that have been expressed were mentioned in the previous debate. It is feared that the Government intend to use the Welsh Grand Committee as a mobile press conference or mobile party political broadcast. Similar criticisms have been made of the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why we have asked for certain safeguards.
Let me run through some of the amendments in the way that the Leader of the House ran through the different Standing Orders.
Amendment (ff) deals with the size of the quorum. We were curious about why the proposals of the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House do not mention a special quorum for the Welsh Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee has been given a special quorum of 10, making it different from usual Standing Committees. European Standing Committees have a special quorum of three. The Welsh Grand Committee is much more akin to the Scottish Grand Committee and European Standing Committees than to usual Standing Committees, which have a quorum of 17 or one third, whichever is less. If one applied that to the Welsh Grand Committee, it would give us 14 now, or 15 after the next general election because of the two additional seats.
The Welsh Grand Committee is not like a conventional Standing Committee, dealing with legislation, but is a general scrutiny Committee, much more like the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees, so we propose a quorum of seven. That is also a useful safeguard against the danger that the Government, and especially the Whips' machine in the Government, would seek to exploit the Welsh Grand Committee. Obviously, any meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee requires a much larger head count on the Opposition side than on the Government side. The consequences of the enormous electoral success that Labour has had in Wales and the catastrophic failure that the Conservative party has had in Wales are that the Conservatives, to reach a quorum of 15, do not have to have many bodies away from Westminster on those days when the Committee meets in Wales, whereas the Opposition would expect to have many bodies away from Westminster.
We therefore consider that a quorum of seven, similar pro rata to the Scottish Grand Committee's quorum of 10, would be far more reasonable, more suitable for both sides and a safeguard against exploitation by the Government Whips Office during tight votes, which might hope that many Welsh Labour Members would be stuck in a snowdrift halfway up Snowdon and unable to return to London.

Dr. John Marek: Surely the argument for a low quorum is that the Grand Committee will take no decisions and have no powers; it will be only a talking

shop, so attendance is likely to be low. To enable the Committee to continue in session, it must be right to have a low rather than a high quorum.

Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend made the point exactly as I would have done, taking the words out of my mouth.
The Boston tea party was based on the principle of no taxation without representation; our amendment is based on the principle of no representation without legislation. The Government must bear that in mind. If the Welsh Grand Committee is a scrutiny Committee and does not have the ability to block or amend Government legislation, it is unreasonable for it to be treated in a similar way to a Standing Committee. That is why we chose the figure of seven.
The Leader of the House made no attempt to explain why the Scottish Grand Committee has a quorum of 10 and the Welsh Grand Committee has the conventional quorum, as though it were a Standing Committee considering legislation after Second Reading. That cannot be right; it is an omission.
We believe that the proposal came from the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not want to criticise the Leader of the House, but as the Secretary of State for Wales did not introduce the debate, he will have the last word at the end of the debate and, as a result, apart from asking him to allow us to intervene, we have no opportunity to ask him why he did not insert provision for a quorum, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees.
The Welsh Grand Committee is not a very grand Committee. It does not deal with legislation; it is much less important than Standing Committees. When it meets in London, it does not set the Thames on fire; when it meets in Cardiff, it does not set the Taff on fire. It probably should have been named the Welsh bonsai committee rather than the Welsh Grand Committee, for the good that it is seen to do. It enables the people of Wales and Members of Parliament representing the people of Wales to ventilate grievances but not to do anything about them. That is why we have made that proposal concerning the quorum—one cannot expect maxi-attendance with mini-importance. Therefore we believe that the quorum is unnecessarily high.
Amendment (a), standing in the name of Labour Front Benchers, reduces the number of "offcomers", to use a Cornish term—Members of Parliament who do not represent Welsh constituencies—in the membership of the Welsh Grand Committee. Unlike in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is provision and, I believe, always has been, for hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies to serve on the Welsh Grand Committee. The number for the Scottish Grand Committee is zero and for the Welsh Grand Committee, five. We understand why.
The Committee would become almost unworkable, under a Conservative Government, if it were impossible to include Members of Parliament not representing Welsh constituencies. Obviously, the Secretary of State is not from Wales, and it is frequently the case—indeed, has always been the case in the past few years—that the parliamentary private secretary and the Government Whip are not from Wales, but the Government also want to be able to pack the Committee with an additional two people.
We are not sure whether five is the right number; we recognise that the figure of five has been used before, but we think that three would be enough to conduct Government business. The Welsh Grand Committee has been structured in a way that is already more generous than the Scottish Grand Committee to what might be called country members—is it necessary to have five of them? A Secretary of State, a parliamentary private secretary and a Government Whip should be enough. If that is not enough, why is there no provision in the Scottish Grand Committee for any Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies? That is a legitimate point for discussion and justification, although we shall not hear the Secretary of State's comments on it until the end of the debate.
I shall let my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) speak on the group of amendments that he tabled. We have noticed that the departmental report of the Secretary of State for Wales has not been made available to Members as early as it used to be—there has been a slippage in its production. Two years ago, the report was available in time for the annual one-day debate on Welsh affairs. The Welsh Office departmental report was usually published in late February so that it could be discussed in the annual debate on Welsh affairs. We could then discuss what the Secretary of State was proposing to spend the money on in the forthcoming financial year.
Last year, publication of the report slipped slightly; this year, it is to be produced very late this month so that the financial year will virtually have commenced by the time that the departmental report is produced. As a result of that slippage, the points that I am sure will emerge during the discussion on that group of amendments are important. The Opposition believe that the Secretary of State has allowed publication of the departmental report to slip so that it cannot be discussed in our annual debate. The Welsh Grand Committee can play a valuable role. It is also important to try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales—when he replies to the amendments—to undertake to publish the Welsh Office departmental report before St. David's day each year so that its provisions can be discussed in the annual Welsh debate.
The last group of amendments which we have tabled, and which has been chosen for debate, involves the legislative function of the Welsh Grand Committee, and is perhaps the most important group. We want to know whether the Government genuinely desire to treat the Welsh Grand Committee as a mature Committee for the discussion of legislation or whether they simply want to confine it to being a talking shop.
If a Bill is sent to the Welsh Grand Committee because it relates exclusively to Wales and the Committee believes that the Bill should not pass on to the statute book, what happens? What would the Government's attitude be if there were a special poll tax measure in Wales, as there was in Scotland a year before the measure was introduced in England and Wales, and if—as would be almost inevitable—the Welsh Grand Committee were to decide that it did not like the Bill, did not think that the people of Wales would accept it, and so turned it down? What would happen to the Bill at that stage under the new Standing Orders? That is the acid test of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to be taken seriously

or whether it is viewed as a travelling circus for the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify Labour's policy on the taxation powers of a Welsh Assembly? Surely, any decision on the poll tax would be a tax decision and, as I understand it—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak about the Welsh Assembly because it is not the topic before us tonight.

Mr. Morgan: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to buy me a pint in the bar later, when I can answer his question, much as I should like to do so now. I entirely accept your verdict, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I can see why the former Minister of State was prompted out of his torpor to make that intervention. We have raised the question whether the Welsh Grand Committee would be able, not to block the legislation, but—having discussed it and turned it down—to prompt a debate on the Floor of the House. We believe that if the Welsh Grand Committee is to be taken seriously, it must be given the ability to recommend that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The House would have the right to overturn that decision after further, proper debate—taking account of the views expressed in the Welsh Grand Committee.
If the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales do not intend the Welsh Grand Committee to be taken seriously, the new Standing Orders, as amended, should remain. Under those Standing Orders, the members of the Welsh Grand Committee ventilate their feelings, blow off steam in Cardiff, in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllanti siliogo-gogoch, Monmouth, Machynlleth, Pontrhydygroes, Pontrhydfendigaid or Llanaelhaearn or wherever. I am sure that, when the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will wish to run through that Automobile Association map of Wales, as I am sure that he has been well coached in such matters for the purposes of the debate. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), is leaving the Chamber to obtain some coaching for the Secretary of State on how to pronounce Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwilllantisiliogo-gogoch.
When the Welsh Grand Committee has let off steam, what is the House supposed to do about the measure when it returns to the House? Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State can simply say, "You have had the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee." The Government believe that there is a choice; a two or three-hour debate can be held in the Welsh Grand Committee, but the measure must then be passed on the nod when it comes to the Floor of the House and there can be no further debate, or the debate can be held on the Floor of the House, in which case there will be no debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. There cannot be a debate in the Committee and on the Floor of the House.
The purpose of the amendment is to raise the fundamental issue of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to give the Government guidance on


how the people of Wales feel about a piece of legislation. Having been given that guidance, the Government should think again, amend the Bill or drop it. The Government will still have the final say; they will be able to decide whether they want to ram through the poll tax or the Welsh Language Bill because they have a majority in the House. But will the Government take any notice of the Welsh Grand Committee's proceedings? That is the important question. That is why we say that if the Welsh Grand Committee decides that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading, that should encourage, not eliminate, further debate on the Floor of the House to take account of the views expressed in the Committee.
I am hoping that, by the time the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will realise that, when the Leader of the House made his mini-concession, it was accepted as a significant movement. The Government were saying, "We will not give you what you want, but we will refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure." The Opposition gave that concession a tremendous welcome; it did not give us immediate satisfaction, but we welcomed it. We are willing to work to improve the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee by consensus if there is a bit of give and take. We are not willing to have our noses rubbed in the ground just because the Government have a majority of the votes in the House. We do not expect the Government to give us everything that we want, but we expect some give.
Despite the one small concession that we have received from the Leader of the House—which I accept was given after due consideration behind the scenes and in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales—we have been worried that the proceedings in preparation for the changes to the Welsh Grand Committee have not been characterised by give and take by the Government. Today's concession was the first evidence we have had of the Government's ability or willingness to consider what the Conservative party needs to do to avoid a wipe-out in Wales as the general election approaches. That is a serious possibility and the Government are beginning to realise that they will have to make the occasional concession—when they do, we respond well. I hope that the Government have learnt that lesson and will realise that, over the next two hours of debate, if they give further concessions, those will be welcomed by the Opposition as evidence that the Government are beginning to realise that they must not try to ram their legislation, views and changes down the throats of the people of Wales, who are overwhelmingly represented by parties opposed to the Conservative Government in Westminster.
We are not asking for the moon in relation to the Welsh language; if we have a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Machynlleth, Aberystwyth or Caernarfon, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to dress up in long, green bardic robes and utter his speech in 15th-century Welsh poetry. We are merely asking for a simultaneous translation of his English.
We like to think that, in the spirit of the little chink of light that the Leader of the House has given us tonight, the great cry of "A oes heddwch?"—"Is there peace?"—that goes up before the final crowning of the bard in the eistedfodd, which I am sure he watches regularly, can be changed. We hope that it can be changed to "A oes consensws?"—I am sure that I do not need to translate that for him—or "A oes chwaranteg?", which means "Is there fair play?" A little fair play will produce a lot of

consensus. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt a lesson from the reaction to the tiny concession that we were given tonight, and I hope that there will be more concessions when the Secretary of State winds up the debate.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I apologise for not being present at the unscheduled debate that took place earlier today. I was in Cardiff, on parliamentary business with the Welsh Affairs Committee, and returned only just in time to hear some of what was being said. I think that I caught the flavour of the debate, however. There was an air of make-believe in some of the arguments that I heard.
I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in respect of the Welsh language, which is to be treated on a basis of equality with English in Wales. I feel that it would be appropriate for speeches in Welsh to be heard in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales—although, as I suggested to my right hon. Friend, I agree with him that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that finer points are involved, which merit further consideration.
I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend's proposals to enlarge the scope of the Welsh Grand Committee, and to increase opportunities for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to give an account of themselves—and for Welsh Members of all parties to hold them to account, as we are empowered to do by this United Kingdom Parliament. It is important to note, however, that, while there is to be a significant extension of the Committee's role, there is no fundamental change in its constitutional status. Its overall function remains to check on the Executive by questioning Ministers and criticising constructively or destructively, as necessity dictates.
The Committee's proceedings will, of course, be reported to the House wherever they take place, and its presence should be welcomed in different parts of Wales. I am bound to add that whether it will be welcomed is another matter; the Committee may well act as a honeypot for publicity seekers of all kinds.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that I asked the Leader of the House earlier? Why does he suppose that, after 17 years, the Government have proposed these changes to the Welsh Grand Committee? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not advance such proposals during his long and distinguished service in the Welsh Office?

Sir Wyn Roberts: On the basis of that argument, no one would do anything. As my right hon. Friend has said, one can always be accused of not having thought of something before. Throughout the years, however, we have thought in terms of improving the Committee's performance, and I know that the Government have been very conscious of some of the criticisms that have been made of it. In any event, my right hon. Friend's proposed changes will extend its scope.
Opposition Members give the impression that they wish that the Committee—when they have a majority, of course—had real power to do their will. That is what is behind all this, and the debate that took place earlier this afternoon. Alternatively, they wish that the Committee


had the power to force the Government to do their will. Such a division of executive power would, however, mean a fundamental change in the country's unitary constitution, and would result in conflict between the Welsh Grand Committee and the House of Commons when there was a Conservative majority. I believe that that desire for change and for power inspires Opposition Members.
The same serious defect can be seen in the devolution scheme encapsulated in the Wales Act 1978, which was subsequently rejected by the people of Wales in a referendum, and the same deep fault lies in Labour's current plans for an executive assembly. There is also the prospect of conflict with local authorities, many of whose powers would be absorbed by a Labour party assembly. [Laughter.] I am speaking to, and justifying, my right hon. Friend's proposals. I am not speaking to the amendments. There is every reason why I should be allowed to support the proposals, and to tell the House what I think is wrong with the motivation behind the amendments.
The Opposition regard criticisms such as mine of their proposals for the Welsh Grand Committee and an assembly as constitutional niceties—as problems that will go away in time. I believe that they will be exacerbated over time. The Labour party puts its trust in the maintenance of its power, not only here but in a Welsh Grand Committee or assembly. I warn Labour Members that their plans contain the seeds of their own destruction. [Interruption.] They will not satisfy hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, and their supporters in the country, any more than the Scottish National party can be satisfied in Scotland. Opposition Members are triumphant in Wales now, but I warn them that their proposals contain the seeds of their destruction.
I said that I would be brief, and I shall be. Let me simply say that I consider my right hon. Friend's proposals to be consistent with the unitary principle on which the United Kingdom's constitution is based.

Mr. Nick Ainger: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that the amendments contain the seeds of destruction for the Labour party in Wales. In that case, why on earth does he not support them?

Sir Wyn Roberts: It may well happen after my time. It is a fair warning to the Labour party. Yes, the Labour party has a strong, monopolistic position in Wales, but it must be very careful about how it uses its position. It is already refusing to share any power with the minority parties. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talked about the meeting of the all-Wales party, but he and I know that that was preceded by a meeting of the Labour party caucus and that everything was decided in advance. The Labour party must not abuse its strength in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: We should get the whole story on the record. The right hon. Gentleman was present at that meeting, and he voted with the majority, so he was certainly party to that decision.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I did not vote with the majority; I was one of two who objected. May I also make the point that I made proposals to my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State at that meeting—for example, that the Welsh Grand Committee might discuss some of the consultative documents that the Welsh Office issues. I did not expect him to change the Standing Orders in any way, but I am sure that he cherished the thought that I gave him because I saw him make a note of it, and I am sure that it will be valued for the future.
The proposals should be welcomed in Wales as similar proposals have been welcomed in Scotland. I am sure that they will contribute to the better government of Wales and show the electorate that the Government are sensitive to their needs, even though they cannot always be met.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In his curious and convoluted way, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) made a bit of an admission. The Leader of the House has also been surprisingly coy about the situation. The fact is that these proposals are meant to be the Government's defence, when the time comes, against a Welsh Assembly. I do not understand why they are so coy and so unwilling to admit it.
Quite a bit of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Conwy represented the beginning of the argument that we shall hear in coming months that the proposals are the alternative, in the Government's eyes, to the Welsh Assembly. Because of that, perhaps I have cast a much more critical eye over the proposals than have some of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am critical of the context in which they have been presented, because they are meant to act as a substitute or an alternative for the devolution proposals that the Labour party will put before the electorate.
Any student of the creation of institutions in Wales in the past 60 years will recognise the operation of the same ploy. A common characteristic of almost every debate on Welsh institutional change that has occurred in the past 60 years is that the establishment—usually a mixture of Whitehall officials and Ministers—offers substitutes for the demands made by the Welsh people and by Welsh representatives.
I shall give the right hon. Gentleman two very brief historic examples of that. In 1944—believe it or not—towards the end of the war, the Welsh parliamentary party, which was chaired by a Conservative Member, submitted to Ministers and to Prime Minister Churchill a proposal that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales and a Welsh Office to promote the reconstruction and regeneration of Welsh political, social and economic life after the war. The reaction of the Government and the establishment to the proposal was interesting and a classic of its kind. They felt that they had to give something towards meeting the demand, which was unanimously made by all hon. Members in the Welsh parliamentary party, and that they had to assuage public opinion by finding an alternative.
Until the past week or two, after reading the War Cabinet minutes on its discussion of it, I did not realise that one of the most fascinating and intriguing proposed alternatives was that, on her 18th birthday, the then heir to the throne, Princess Elizabeth, should have conferred on her the title of Princess of Wales. That was the sop to Welsh opinion.
I did not want to raise that point too strenuously because of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—[Laughter.] It is obvious that, in 1996, as


opposed to 1944, the Secretary of State or the Government could not propose that option because it would be much more contentious than it was in 1944. I cite that case only to demonstrate that a repeated characteristic of debates on Welsh institution making is that the establishment of the day reacts by offering an alternative or substitutes for the demands of the overwhelming majority.
In 1944, there was a demand for a Secretary of State for Wales and for the establishment of a Welsh Office. That demand was made through an all-party group, so I am not trying to make any points in a partisan spirit. Although the Labour party committed itself to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the creation of a Welsh Office in the 1945 election, the Government of the day did not implement the proposal but again came up with an alternative that was less than what was demanded. That was when the idea of a council of Wales was born.
The characteristic offering of other options was repeated at various times in the 1950s during the debate on the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales. Prime Minister Macmillan suggested that Henry Brooke, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, should be given the title Secretary of State for Wales, but backed off when Butler and others in the Cabinet opposed it.
These proposals are a classic illustration of the phenomenon that has occurred over the past 50 or 60 years of debates on Welsh institution making, in that a substitute has to be provided to meet the demand made on the day. In this case, the substitute for a Welsh Assembly is a revamped Welsh Grand Committee. I do not like these proposals because I see them in that context—as a paler version of a Welsh Assembly, to be contained within the context of Westminster parliamentary life.
Let us examine the proposals. They try to recreate in the Committee what we currently do on the Floor of the House. Other hon. Members may support that, but I am not in favour of replacing Question Time on the Floor of the House with a paler version of it in the Welsh Grand Committee. I do not see the point of duplicating a procedure that is available to us in the House. I can appreciate the case for minor statements occasionally to be made in Committee, but I should like all significant and major statements on expenditure to be made in our presence on the Floor of the House. We should not accept these proposals on a Welsh Grand Committee because they offer us a pale version of a Welsh Assembly, set in the context of the Westminster parliamentary model.
For those reasons, I take a more cynical view of the proposals. I suspect the motive behind the proposals, the context in which they have been presented and the fact that they may have been offered as an alternative to the idea of a Welsh Assembly. Why have we not dealt with the problems and defects of this place? Anyone who was in the Chamber during the debate on Welsh local government finance could surely see the case for devolution. There were announcements about a billion pounds and more, and every Welsh local authority was facing council tax increases of 25 per cent., yet only a handful—three or four—hon. Members had the opportunity to make speeches to explain the impact that those proposals would have on their constituents and local communities.
If anyone needed a demonstration of why we should have a Welsh Assembly or why the Welsh Grand Committee should re-examine the way in which it scrutinises the issues of major Welsh public finance and public expenditure, it was provided by that debate and those arrangements. In a couple of hours, we debated something that will have a profound effect on every authority, community and individual in our constituencies. It was an illustration of the House's inadequacies and deficiencies in dealing with matters of great importance to our constituents. If we are looking for additional ways to revamp the Welsh Grand Committee, the first would be to consider the detailed way in which that Committee could scrutinise major elements of expenditure and estimates.
I am an old-fashioned parliamentarian. This place was born to debate estimates and Supply. Wars fought in the 18th century were successful because people were prepared to raise taxation. They accepted that there was a legitimate way to account for it through parliamentary procedure. In the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—30 years at the end of this month—I have seen that principle eroded in various ways, partly because of Europe and partly because of a lack of interest or lack of will to do the job here, within the procedures of the House. There was, therefore, a case for revamping the Welsh Grand Committee to scrutinise in more detail the development of public expenditure plans for Wales.
I do not criticise the present Select Committee, which does a fantastic job. It takes longer-term views than I am suggesting and looks into matters in the broad and the round. It has not scrutinised Welsh public expenditure and finance to the extent that one might have expected but, in fairness to it, it sought a different platform, as did so many Select Committees.
The Welsh Grand Committee should fill a gap in our scrutiny of Welsh public expenditure rather than duplicate much of what we do on the Floor of the House at Question Time. That is the reason for my having a shot at making at least one suggestion as to how we might ensure that that happens. In a non-partisan spirit, I submitted a proposal to the Secretary of State immediately after his statement. I received an appalling one-sentence reply, saying that he would not take my suggestion into account, that he was not really interested and that he was going ahead with his proposal. There was no consultation, and my sensible suggestion was not given serious consideration.
That is all the more astonishing because my proposal would have brought to the Welsh Grand Committee a procedure that we already operate. I was not inventing anything; my proposal is, word for word, the basis on which European Standing Committees A and B operate.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is a member of a European Standing Committee and I am an occasional visitor. They are among the most interesting Committees. The procedure that they have adopted makes Ministers work for their corn. Detailed documents are put before the Committee and, for an hour, hon. Members can pose any question relating to them. Ministers are made to get up and down. They do not like it—it must be most uncomfortable. I am glad that it did not form part of ministerial experience in my time and that I did not have to go through it, because it is wearing.
Ministers have to do their homework in a way that is not required in a general Welsh Grand Committee debate. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has clearly been through it and will testify to its interest, value and, indeed, the discipline that goes with it. I am suggesting that we adopt the same procedure for at least two sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
I suggested that the documents put before the Welsh Grand Committee—the equivalent of the European documents, or directives, put before European Standing Committees A and B—should be specific sections of the departmental expenditure reports, which should be subject to the same scrutiny as material put to those interesting new inventions, European Standing Committees A and B.

Mr. Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend—I whip the European Standing Committees for the Labour party. It is a characteristic of those Committees that Ministers are unable to wriggle off the hook easily because hon. Members can come back at them and tease out the reality behind the answers that they receive. There are few similar opportunities available on the Floor.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the working of those Committees. I am sure that a combination of ministerial and departmental ingenuity maintains the Government line, but it is much harder to do so in those Committees than under any other procedures available to us on the Floor of the House or in other Standing Committees.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Would not there be a problem for the Conservative party if what my hon. Friend suggests were to happen, in that there is such a lack of choice of Conservatives who could be Ministers? It must be a gruelling test—the Conservatives have already had four successive Secretaries of State from England and the Under-Secretary of State comes from England, too.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We cannot build our procedures around the inadequacies of the present ministerial lot.
I read in a minute from 1957–58 that the objection to creating a Welsh Office was that, as one official said, there were not enough good or clever Conservative Members to fill the posts available. That was one of the practical objections in the 1950s even to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales.
I hope that I have not spoken in a partisan spirit, but the European Standing Committee procedure is a useful way in which to scrutinise expenditure. It would complement other procedures and, unlike the proposed Standing Orders, it would not duplicate what we can already do on the Floor of the House.
Amendment (aa) refers to departmental expenditure reports because the current Secretary of State's predecessor, when submitting the previous report to the House, boasted in the foreword about the size of public expenditure in Wales. That was interesting coming from

the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a curious mix in all sorts of ways. He said in the foreword:
Public expenditure provision for programmes within my responsibility will be £6,644 million … equal to some £6,000 for every household in Wales.
If that is the real level of expenditure per household, it should be subject to greater scrutiny than existing procedure allows.
I hope that my suggestion will be reviewed in the spirit in which it was made and that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will agree that we should consider a different kind of Welsh Grand Committee rather than accept a pale substitute for the only real meaningful alternative—a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on a strong and well-researched speech. We all look forward to reading the lecture that he has given at Bangor and which includes some of the same material. It was, historically speaking, a persuasive analysis of the situation. When we see the Conservatives dangling half a cake, we should be aware that there is a need for a substantial cake but that we are to get only some of the crumbs.
The question today is why we should have a Welsh Grand Committee at all. The answer is that the Welsh Grand Committee exists because Wales is a nation. The Welsh Grand Committee is given no powers in case Wales starts behaving like a nation and takes decisions for itself rather than having the ability to debate ad infinitum but, at the end of the day, is not able to take any meaningful decisions for the people of Wales.
There are two deficits in Wales. The first is a democratic deficit and the second is a deficit of accountability. The proposals that we are discussing do not, in any shape or form, deal with the fundamental democratic deficit. It might have been possible to try to go down that road by giving the Welsh Grand Committee additional powers. Some of tonight's speeches have touched on some of those powers, but clearly the Government are not prepared to tackle the democratic deficit in any shape or form. There are 38 Members of Parliament in Wales and the governing party, even having won a general election, has only six seats. If it loses a general election, goodness knows how many seats it will have.

Mr. Allan Rogers: None at all.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps none at all, as the hon. Gentleman says. The number of Conservative Members shows the Welsh electorate's rejection of the Government, who for the past 17 years have governed our country on a platform that has no support from the people of Wales, pursuing policies that are often diametrically opposed to their economic and social good. The structures of Westminster do not allow the people of Wales even to take a single decision on matters of concern to them.
That was shown two or three years ago in a most lamentable manner when a couple of Bills exclusively to deal with Wales were introduced. I accept that the Welsh Language Act 1993 was a modest step forward, but it


was debated in a Committee that was packed with Tory Members representing English constituencies, who did not have the background to debate the subject or, knowledge of the subject and who did not have to live with the legislation's consequences. They were able, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, to make progress on the language agenda that was agreed by all Opposition parties. Legislation was imposed on us that was acceptable to the Conservative minority and not to the non-Conservative majority of the people of Wales.
That became more evident when Parliament debated the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. From the turn of the century, the Standing Orders of this place have allowed all Welsh Members to sit on Committees that consider Bills which exclusively deal with Wales. That was overridden by the Government to ensure that Welsh Members did not have a majority say when it came to the brass tacks and legislative decisions were to be taken. With these proposals, we make no modicum of movement forward in dealing with that democratic deficit. From now to kingdom come, we will have to accept laws and decisions imposed on us by a Conservative majority. That will apply for as long as a Conservative party receives a majority in England, but it never has and never will win a majority in Wales.
There is a modest movement forward on the accountability deficit. The Government are trying, I suppose, to allow the Executive to be a little more answerable to Welsh Members, but Welsh question Time—one of the tools available to Welsh Members to question the Executive—has already been undermined by the Government Whips getting English Conservative Members to hog the Order Paper on the one Monday a month when we have 35 or 40 minutes to ask questions on Welsh affairs. The agenda is set by the first question that is called and we must ask supplementary questions in the wake of that agenda laid down by Conservative Members. That is why we will have a little movement on answering questions in the Welsh Grand Committee—questions that we will have no time to ask on the Floor of the House.
I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that some of these issues will be shovelled upstairs, where the press will often not be present and where we will not have the powers of scrutiny or the attention that is necessary. That is why, in terms not only of the democratic deficit but of the accountability deficit, we should debate these matters in an elected Parliament in Cardiff that can make its own laws and not be a talking shop, which the Welsh Grand Committee has been and will continue to be if we accept these modest proposals.
I want to take up four or five specific points with regard to the powers that the Welsh Grand Committee should have. The first is to do with the type of motions that its members are allowed to debate. It is a farce that the Committee must consider "take note" motions, for example, on education in Wales. When at the end of that debate we vote against the Government, does it mean that we have not taken note of the issue of education in Wales?
Opposition Members cannot table any substantive motion that can call the Government or the Welsh Office to account. All we can table is a "take note" motion and take part in a meaningless vote at the end. The Standing

Orders should allow us to debate substantive motions that can be tabled not just by Conservative Members, but by any hon. Member.

Mr. Rogers: My experience in this place gradually leads me almost to the same view as the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Welsh Grand Committee. He mentioned education. The comprehensive system in England or in certain inner-city areas has deteriorated, but in Wales it has made a substantial contribution to raising education standards. Although there may be small particular problems, generally in Wales it is of the highest standard, yet we must have policies imposed by English Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a very long intervention.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree entirely. The Welsh education tradition has been valued and developed over decades to respond to the experience of ordinary people in Wales. They have viewed education as a key to improving their lives in material terms and in terms of opportunities and enjoyment of the best things of life.
Over the past 100 years, we had to establish that to pull ourselves up by our shoestrings. At the end of the previous century, during the Liberal party's heyday, and in this century, when Labour has been the strength in Wales, education's importance has been a common thread running through radical politics in Wales. Sadly, that does not exist in England, although I do not make a strong point about that difference. We place more emphasis on education. We need to be able to fine-tune our policies—not just talk about things—and to take decisions in line with our values, which we are not allowed to do in the only forum that we have: the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Rogers: I do not know why the Government Whip is laughing.

Mr. Wigley: The Government Whip would laugh because Conservative Members know that they will get their way. Government Whips will marshal Conservative Members in the Lobby. Whatever we decide in the Welsh Grand Committee or in the Welsh Select Committee, the Tory majority from England will decide what happens in Wales. That is the reality of the mechanism of non-democracy in our country.
In the 1970s, we had opportunities to discuss and debate legislation in the Welsh Grand Committee. If I remember correctly, legislation on the Development Board for Rural Wales was debated there. If we are democrats, there is no reason why we should not debate legislation at Second Reading or Committee stages in the Welsh Grand Committee, but we are not allowed to do so in case we start taking decisions in the interests of the people of Wales and in line with their wishes. We can talk about things, but we are not allowed to decide anything. The governor general knows better than that.

Mr. Rogers: The viceroy.

Mr. Wigley: As the hon. Gentleman says, the viceroy. An hon. Member from outside Wales knows better than we do and he has the troops behind him. It is the majority of Tory Members from England who decide what is good for Wales, not the people of Wales.
The use of the Welsh language in Welsh Grand Committee meetings in Wales has been mentioned. I was glad that that has at least reached the agenda—as shown by the Leader of the House—and that it will be discussed further, but, as that matter has clearly been under consideration for a time, I would have expected it to move further down the agenda by now.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is present. He steered the 1993 Act through Parliament. I make it clear to the Leader of the House—I would do so if he were here—and to the Secretary of State for Wales that I intend to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. I will do so in line with the law of the land that has been passed by the Government. That law allows public business in Wales to be debated in Welsh. If whoever is chairing the Committee deems that I am not allowed to do that, he or she will be in breach of that law. The Government should sort that one out before the Committee meets in Wales. I declare that it is my earnest intention to speak in Welsh when the Committee next meets in Wales. I rely on the law of the land to protect me and I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Conwy will be the first to ensure that support is given to that view.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposed using the device that has been developed in European Standing Committees A and B. That would be worth while and we discussed it for a short time at the Welsh parliamentary fleeting that some of us attended. I hope that important statements by the Secretary of State that he cannot make now because there is no time can be analysed in an hour of questions and answers and an hour and a half of debate.
I was a member of European Standing Committee B for four years. but I am no longer a member. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), was in that Committee when I tried to put questions to him and he knows that it can be a rigorous process. No doubt Ministers will try to wriggle, but they get fewer chances to do that when we come back four or five times on the same theme. One can nail them down and then make a speech.
The quorum in the Welsh Grand Committee should be determined in line with the number of Welsh Members—seven or whatever the figure should be. The last thing that I would accept is a quorum that is dictated by hon. Members from outside Wales, which is the practice in other Committees. When subjects are called for debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, there should be not only notional dialogue in the usual channels but an acceptance that the majority of Welsh Members should call the subjects for debate: they should not be subjects that are merely for the convenience of the Government. We should re-establish the ability of all parties to have subjects aired.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is excellent and has carried out much good work under the outstanding chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gower

(Mr. Wardell). But its reports lie forgotten on dusty shelves although many of the good proposals in them should be taken on board.

Mr. Rowlands: I received a written answer from the Leader of the House on 4 December. I had asked how many reports had been received from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and how many had been debated in the House. I was told that there had been 36 such reports and that none had been debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wigley: That shows the breakdown of the intentions that were put to the House in 1979 by the now Lord St. John of Fawsley. There was supposed to be a progression from the Select Committee investigation to debate in the House and decisions were to be taken. That system has broken down because the House does not have the time or the will to address such matters. That may be acceptable in the context of other Select Committees, although I doubt it, but it is certainly not acceptable to Welsh Members.
Let us use the mechanism of the Welsh Grand Committee to make proper decisions and to make sure that the Executive is accountable in some way to the people of Wales. The proposals to tinker with the Welsh Grand Committee do not answer the fundamental problems that are caused by the lack of democracy in our country. The Committee could have been made at least a little stronger if the Secretary of State had taken on board the constructive proposals by Welsh Members in our meeting with him. It is a disgrace that he is not willing to do that.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The status of the Welsh language in the House is the same as that of riotous behaviour. If we speak in Welsh in the House, as many hon. Members have done, we are called to order, and if we persist we are thrown out of the House. Many of us have considered that course and it is inevitable that it will be taken if the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sticks by his threat. Many of us have great sympathy for that course.
The Standing Order that covers the matter is incredible. It says that speeches must be made in English but that quotations in a foreign tongue may be allowed occasionally although a translation should be provided. Where is Welsh in there? Welsh is not English but it is certainly not a foreign tongue. This is the only Parliament of Wales but the ancient language of Wales is not heard here. That is an ancient injustice that we can put right now. People have tried. Mabon in 1896 spoke in Welsh and quoted the illustrious Member for Rhondda, which is now represented by another illustrious person, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
What is the present status? Even if the Standing Order is right, we are not allowed to quote in Welsh. A month ago during a debate on ferries I quoted from an account of a crossing of the channel that took place 50 years before the birth of Christ. Not unexpectedly, the account was in Latin and I quoted some 70 words, which was acceptable. My hon. Friends from Labour comprehensives understood what I was talking about, but I provided a translation for the Conservative victims of public school


education. It is extraordinary that speaking in Latin was permissible whereas I would have been stopped if I had uttered more than two or three words in Welsh.
My constituency used to be wholly bilingual. The children in the town of Caerleon spoke Latin, but the children outside the walls of the town spoke Welsh. Today one does not hear much Latin on the tongues of the children in Caerleon but, happily, one can still hear Welsh. That extraordinary language has echoed down the centuries and is still with us as a living treasure of enormous worth and it means so much to so many of us.
I did not have the advantage enjoyed by many hon. Members of speaking Welsh from the cradle, but as an adolescent I had the good luck to have a marvellous teacher who introduced me to Gweledigaethau'r Bardd Cwrsg, y Gododdin, Dafydd ap Gwilym and to the wonderful, majestic works of T. Gwyn Jones and the lyrical beauty of the imagery of Robert Williams Parry. No one has written with more accuracy, feeling and inspiration about working-class suffering in Wales in the north and south and about the quarry workers and miners than the Gwenally in the south or those who wrote about the quarry workers in north Wales.
It is difficult to express to those who live in one language the experience of living in more than one. It is difficult to explain that the first language that one hears at one's mother's breast, the last one that is expressed in the final prayers before death and the only language with the tenderness to make love in or in which one can curse effectively is that mother tongue, the one—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether it would be necessary in the Welsh Grand Committee to curse in Welsh or in any other language. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the subject under consideration.

Mr. Flynn: We express strong words in the House. One of the disadvantages of a lack of simultaneous translation is that when curses in Welsh are made in the House—and I have heard them—there is no way that Front-Bench Members understand what is being said.

Mr. Michael: Or the Chair. One hopes they are not directed at the Chair.

Mr. Flynn: No, they are not.
Our request is modest. Is it unusual for the world's Parliaments to have more than one language? A review undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union discovered that 51 Parliaments use only one language, 22 use two languages on a daily basis, six use three languages and four Parliaments, including Singapore, which is well known to hon. Members, use more than three languages. There is nothing novel about that. Simultaneous translation is provided easily, in a sophisticated manner. There is no reason why members of the Government Front-Bench team who do not speak Welsh should feel nervous about any lack of understanding in Committee. The people who provide the translations are extremely skilful.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Did the hon. Gentleman see the Secretary of State for Wales on television at the weekend in the Council of Ministers, where translation equipment was provided for him?

Mr. Flynn: Indeed I did. The European Community copes with half a dozen languages with great ease.
Amendment (y), which I am grateful has been selected, proposes a very modest concession. The main reason that we want to press it is that we know the extent of the difficulties when Welsh is spoken in the House. People from all corners of the world can sit in one part of the House where their companions can provide them with simultaneous translation. People have given evidence to Select Committees in a dozen languages.
There is a great danger that we shall continue the traditional disregard of the Welsh language and other minority languages that has occurred for about 200 years. Such disregard is part of the linguistic colonisation that has taken place in Britain and in many other countries.
Many of us are familiar with the sign in a Brittany classroom that said, "Défense de cracher, défense de parler Bretonne"—meaning do not spit, do not speak Breton. The little Bretons had sabots around their necks—exactly the same as the Welsh knot. One child who found another speaking Breton would pass the sabot. The petits delateurs were therefore turned against one another and into sneaks on the language in a positive movement to destroy the language.
In my constituency, as chronicled in "Brad y Llytrau Gleision", inspectors visited two schools in the middle of the last century and said that the children were all stupid because they could not understand a word that was spoken. The inspectors were unilingual in English and could not understand a word of the Welsh spoken by the children. They did not understand why Welsh was being spoken. As hon. Members have said, the children are part of a great educational tradition.
The language has survived. Waldo chronicled how by chance—it was miraculous—the language survived through the centuries because of the non-conformist Church, or because of the Catholic Church, as happened in Brittany. It survived not because people thought of it as a material reward but because they loved it, it was part of their lives and it was of genuine worth. They rejoiced in the literature of the language.

Mr. Rogers: In paying tribute to the various agencies that have kept the language alive, my hon. Friend ought to pay a great tribute to people such as the late Lord Heycock and other Labour Members who in the valleys of south Wales adopted Welsh language policies, started the system of Welsh comprehensive and primary schools and saved the Welsh language.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): indicated dissent.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister who is shaking his head ought to be ashamed of his attitude to the Welsh language.

Mr. Flynn: I was building up to the climax of mentioning the great success of Welsh-medium education, especially in south Wales. For many of us who have worked in local authorities, it has been one of the great joys to give children who did not speak Welsh in their homes the chance to learn the language. Indeed, they had the chance to learn the language as their parents' generation never did—to read and write it. Many people of the previous generation were not literate. It is one of the great successes of Welsh education that the children


have inherited the immense treasure of a second language—their own language. A second language is often the stepping stone to a third and fourth language.
I am disappointed that the Government will not see fit to accept the amendment, which, as I have said, is very modest. All it would do is enable translation equipment and translators to be made available in the Welsh Grand Committee, regardless of its venue. Translators are skilled and would be able to provide a service.
The difficulty is over what will happen with the Hansard writers. What will happen is what happens now when speeches of certain Members, whom I would not dare mention, are totally incomprehensible—to me, anyway. Some of them are from the far corners of these islands and speak in strange accents that I find very difficult to understand. By some odd process, we find that their speech is in Hansard in clear English. If the speech is not entirely understood, corrections can be made. I understand that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, Select Committee reporters take down what the translators say. If the person who has spoken in Welsh wishes to correct that later, that can be done. There is no difficulty whatsoever.
I accept that there are difficulties in other areas, for example, if we are to have a report in Welsh and English. However, there is nothing in amendment (y) to prevent it from being accepted tonight without any difficulty. The Government have given us a problem with how to proceed tonight. I want to consider whether to proceed with the amendment. We accept that a concession has been made.
I take on board the comment by hon. Members that this is not a new issue. An early-day motion, signed by 66 hon. Members, was tabled as long ago as 1988. Something could have come from that. It is late in the life of this Parliament. I know that an hon. Member spoke to this Parliament in Chaucerian English. For almost every hon. Member it was complete gibberish—yet it was declared to be in order. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating what was said, but it was English. The Standing Order allows for hon. Members to speak in Chaucerian English, regardless of the fact that hardly anyone can understand what is being said. But the language of Wales is not allowed here. Fourteen members of the Welsh Grand Committee are fluent in the Welsh language; several others can understand a speech in Welsh. More than a third of the members of that Committee can speak fluent Welsh and more than half can understand a speech in Welsh.
The final words of our national anthem, which we sing with great passion, are:
O bydded i'r heniaith barhau"—
which means, "Oh would that the ancient language continues to live." "What we are asking tonight for Am yr uwch-bwyllgor Gymreig—the Welsh Grand Committee—is, O bydded i'r heniaith ddechreu."

Mr. Alun Michael: We should paraphrase the child's question on seeing a politician in full flow—"Mummy, what is he for?" The same question needs to be asked of the Secretary of State for Wales when he attends the Welsh Grand

Committee. Indeed, it is the question that we need to ask about the Committee itself. What is the Welsh Grand Committee for? What is the Secretary of State present at the Committee for?
A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State gave the impression of wanting to be reasonable in this debate. As I chair the Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament this year, I want to stress the generosity and reasonableness with which we responded to the suggestions of change. The tone of our meetings; the tone adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and his Front-Bench colleagues; and, above all, the tone that all Welsh Members brought to the Welsh parliamentary party when we discussed the issue with the Secretary of State, demonstrated the good will towards having a sensible debate about changes. It was said earlier that the Secretary of State went from that meeting promising to listen, but reneged on that within an hour, if not within minutes. That is a disgraceful response to the generosity of spirit shown by Welsh Members.
Why is not the right hon. Gentleman accepting a single one of the sensible amendments for change that have been put before the House tonight? They are not large and unreasonable changes; they are attempts to take forward the suggestions for change in a reasonable way. Surely it is unreasonable of the Secretary of State suddenly to become adamant that he will not accept anything other than the motion that he has put before the House.
I want to refer to two of the amendments. The first is that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which I welcome. My hon. Friend suggests that we should examine the departmental report of the Welsh Office, thereby suggesting a degree of accountability. The Secretary of State for Wales should be willing to answer questions and to respond on the detail in the report before the Welsh Grand Committee. Surely that is what we are in Parliament for. We are here to legislate and to hold the Executive accountable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would welcome the opportunity to account to Welsh Members for his report and that he would accept the amendment.
The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) suggested that the Labour party might lose its dominance in Wales and might, therefore, regret having suggested that powers should be given to the people of Wales through an elected assembly in Wales. It may have escaped his notice that the fact that the electors can elect whom they choose is known as democracy, and that the process can swing against a party as well as for it. The Labour party has no fear of democracy. If we lost our dominance, others would represent the people of Wales, and rightly so. I have no fear, however, of that coming about for many years, unless the Conservative party totally changes its attitude of intransigence to what the electorate in Wales wants. The right hon. Gentleman's comment demonstrated the Conservatives' lack of interest in accountability, and a wish to hang on desperately to power informed his criticisms.
It is right that we should pursue the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that there should be a small degree of accountability, and it is also right that the Grand Committee should study the reports by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The reports are often lost, although they raise important issues that interest our



constituents. When we tell them that there is no proper debate in the House on many of the Select Committee's reports, they are surprised. When a Select Committee has gone into an issue in depth and produced a report, the Government have to make a response. Is it not sensible that there should be a proper and reasonable debate on the issues, and that the Welsh Grand Committee should be the place for those debates?
Amendment (y), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), would allow the use of the Welsh language when the Grand Committee meets in Wales. Developments in recent years have allowed people the opportunity to use the Welsh language when they choose to do so. Those developments have been sensible. Increasingly, it has been a matter not of ramming the Welsh language down people's throats but of encouraging them to use it. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the way in which Labour local authorities have encouraged the teaching of Welsh, and encouraged people to exercise choice rather than dominating them.
I was brought up in a Welsh-speaking family in north Wales, but I lost the Welsh language during my years in school. I welcome, therefore, the chance of relearning Welsh through adult education, as a second opportunity, and I also welcome the fact that, whereas I am semi-literate in the Welsh language, my children have had the opportunity of bilingual education and are able to speak Welsh. As adults, they have exercised their choice about what they do with that education and what they do with the ability to use two languages.
Is it right that the House took the decision for public bodies in Wales through the Welsh Language Act 1993, but that it is unwilling to apply that decision to our own proceedings when we meet in Wales? Surely it is minimal progress for us to legislate for public bodies and to place requirements on them, yet not to observe those requirements ourselves when we meet in Wales. The Welsh Language Act is concerned primarily with the activities of public bodies in Wales. We should surely apply those requirements to ourselves when we operate as a Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. That is a modest proposal.
As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, there are translation facilities in council chambers in Wales. At a recent meeting, British and German Members of Parliament were able to communicate because translation facilities were available. Translation is provided in a variety of public and private bodies, so why not have it in the Welsh Grand Committee? The Leader of the House said that the matter would be referred to the Procedure Committee. I simply reinforce the request for translation that was made earlier. Please let us have a speedy answer. Let the Government not drag their feet in the same way that they did for the Welsh Language Act, when there was unanimity of purpose in Wales and in the House.
This is an opportunity to turn a pointless talking shop into a place for reasoned debate, where we can hold the Secretary of State to account and have real debates on issues that affect our constituents. In the House, under a Conservative Government, the Secretary of State always has the votes to ignore hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. That is a fact of life, but he will gain greater credit and enhance his reputation if he

changes the attitude that he has shown since the Welsh parliamentary party met and listen to what is being said by hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies.
The saying to which the Secretary of State should pay attention is, "Bu ben byd bont," which means, "He who would be a leader must be a bridge." Let the Secretary of State listen to that and change his attitude, and help us to turn the Welsh Grand Committee into a place of meaningful debate, which will win respect from our constituents and the people of Wales as a whole.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the proposed changes to the Welsh Grand Committee.
During my time in the House, I have felt that the Welsh Grand Committee is an underused creature. It meets irregularly, but potentially it is an excellent forum, and as it is made up of all the Members of Parliament who represent Wales, it should naturally deal with business that affects only Wales. Opposition Members felt deeply disappointed that the Welsh Language Bill was referred to Standing Committee, not the Welsh Grand Committee. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, many of the amendments that we tabled, which had all-party support among the Opposition parties and were popular in Wales, were voted down by English Conservative Members.
I very much wanted to be on the Committee that considered the Local Government (Wales) Bill, as did other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. I naturally defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) because of their experience and constituency interest, but I felt it highly improper that I could not speak for the new Carmarthenshire and for its powers and so on, when many English Conservative Members, who had no constituency interests, were voting down amendments tabled by the Labour party and the Opposition parties in Wales.
I broadly welcome the changes that the Government propose. The extra Question Time would be lively, although 30 minutes would not be enough, as many Back Benchers—especially Labour Back Benchers, as there are so many of us—already find it difficult to participate in the 35 or 40 minutes of Welsh questions. The time allowed for short debates—five minutes for the proposer, five minutes for the Minister and three minutes for other Members—is very short. I have some reservations about ministerial statements, especially if it is the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer making an opportunist guest appearance. Such details need to be changed, but broadly the measures are good.
I support the amendments spoken to by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Indeed, I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the use of the Welsh language. It is no big deal. It should be straightforward. Simultaneous translation is widespread now, certainly in Welsh-speaking Wales and across most of Wales. It is easily practicable. In view of the precedent of the Select Committee, I cannot see why the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are making such a mountain of what should be a straightforward procedure and why they do not treat the Welsh language on an equal basis.
Another feature that is missing from the Standing Orders is the frequency with which the reformed Welsh Grand Committee will meet. At the infamous meeting of 20 February, the Secretary of State said that it would meet about eight times a year. We want at least that. The Labour party suggested that it should meet every other Tuesday morning—a regular spot, which we would all know to expect. That would be 15 or 18 meetings a year.
What will the people of Wales make of the changes, if the House votes for them this evening? The changes will give us a body with no powers that meets eight times a year for two and a half hours. That will amount to 20 hours a year. The people of Wales want something that meets at least 20 hours a week, with real powers to debate and exercise powers that are now the powers of the Secretary of State. That can come only when we have an elected Welsh Assembly.
The proposals are a tiny 1 per cent. of what we want. They are a small improvement. I welcome them for those reasons.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had an illuminating debate, even including the comments made by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and his particular concern to save the Labour party as the party of government in Wales. I can see which way he is veering on his retirement.
The presentation of the new Standing Orders and our amendments represent a missed opportunity for the Government to take a significant step forward in the conduct of Welsh affairs within the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spotlighted clearly in his speech the fact that we have here a fig leaf presented by the Government, in an effort to show that they are interested in extending in some way our opportunities to debate Welsh affairs. I suppose that we can go that far, because the changes in the Standing Orders will provide additional opportunities to debate Welsh affairs and to ask more questions about Welsh affairs, but they will do nothing more substantial. They will not allow Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies to play a more practical and effective role in determining what happens in Wales.
The proposal made in a well-researched speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, our respected Friend with much experience, took one aspect of the business of the House dealt with by European Standing Committees, which could easily be used on the Welsh scene within the Welsh Grand Committee, to improve the ability of Welsh Members to question Ministers on their plans for any particular year in which they happened to be with us. They will not be there for much longer now, thank goodness. In view of what my hon. Friend said, some Opposition Members—no one knows who they may be—will be quaking at the thought of being on the Government's side of the Dispatch Box under the procedure that he has proposed and subject to questioning by him. Given that the procedure is already in use in the House, I hope that the Government will be prepared to support my hon. Friend's two amendments. We believe that they are worthy of support.
I was pleased that the Leader of the House was prepared to make a concession and consider the use of the Welsh language in meetings of the Grand Committee in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), although I missed the early part of his speech, seemed to be making an effective case about why it should be natural for Welsh to be used in debates in the Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) argued convincingly that there should be no technical or other problems with that.
I would go so far as to say that section 3(2)(b) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 gives the Government a duty to ensure that Welsh can be used in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. It is fair to say that the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee are public business and that section 3 states that one of the functions of the Welsh Language Board is to
advise persons exercising functions of a public nature on the ways in which effect may be given to the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
When the matter is referred to the Procedure Committee, the Government will have the opportunity to recommend, as the Leader of the House said, that it should consider positively the way in which the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West can best be put into effect. While I accept that that cannot be hurried through in time for a meeting in a month's time, the Committee should be asked to consider the proposal with a view to bringing a report to the House that can be considered before the summer recess. On second thoughts, that may put the Committee under pressure because of rumours, which I hope that we can set aside, that we are due to finish at the end of May because of the Government's fears of not being able to continue for much longer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): The hon. Gentleman should not bank on it.

Mr. Griffiths: I am still planning my holidays for August. The report should be made before the summer recess.
Given the angst that the run-up to the debate has caused, it is worth repeating that it was back in March 1993 that we first suggested that it would be worth reconsidering the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee to make it more effective. Since then, we have made several attempts to get a constructive dialogue going. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party—

Mr. Ron Davies: The Welsh parliamentary party.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry. I was unable to attend the Welsh parliamentary party meeting because of my duties elsewhere—I was at the Standing Committee on the iniquitous Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. It is most unfortunate that, within an hour of the meeting, the Secretary of State virtually rubbished


all the proposals discussed there. When he replies to the debate, I hope that he will at least retrieve some of that ground, first, by reiterating the commitment that a report on the use of the Welsh language will be put before the House in plenty of time for us to consider it before the summer recess and, secondly, by accepting all the amendments that Opposition Members have tabled.
The first amendment is fairly technical and ought to cause no problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) outlined the argument for amendment (ff) on the quorum at the beginning of the debate. It simply falls into line with the practice in the Scottish Grand Committee and would certainly make sense, given the references already made to the fact that there are some parallels on certain basic points between the two Committees.
I hope that the Government will also accept amendment (a). Three members of the Committee with constituencies outside Wales ought to be a sufficient number when conducting the business of the Welsh Grand Committee. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that—unless, of course, they think that a Conservative Government could come to power without any Conservative Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies. Otherwise, three members plus, from time to time, the one, two or three Conservative members of the Committee who might represent Welsh constituencies should be sufficient for them.
My hon. Friend also referred to amendment (p) and the need to ensure that the Welsh Grand Committee recommends that a Bill be read a Second time. A Bill should proceed only if it gains the assent of the Grand Committee. That would be a small but important step forward. It would establish a really democratic view of the Government's business in Wales.
Hon. Members cited a number of examples of how that might have helped the Government to avoid some disastrous mistakes, such as the poll tax, for which we have a permanent 2.5 per cent. increase on value added tax. The Government could have avoided that if they had tested the proposal in a Welsh Grand Committee that had the right to determine whether such a Bill should proceed.
A number of references have been made to the legislation to reform Welsh local government, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said, he dearly wished to be on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill; he had direct interests that he wanted to air in detail on behalf of his constituents. As a result of the way in which the Committee was structured, the present procedures of the House and the fact that the Government decided not to use Standing Order No. 86, which would have enabled them to hold the entire debate in an all-Welsh Committee, he missed that opportunity—much to the detriment of the way in which that Bill proceeded through the House.
I should have loved the opportunity to take part in the debates on the Bill—as would many other Welsh Members—but there were not enough places on the Committee for Labour Members. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head—he does not have local government responsibilities—and trying to claim that that is rubbish. Given the membership and size of the Committee, there was no opportunity for Labour Members to be properly represented on it.

Mr. Richards: Referring to the Local Government (Wales) Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) wished to be a member of the Standing Committee. During the debate on that issue, I pointed out that that hon. Member, and many other Opposition Members, had shown no interest in local government in Wales, because they had not tabled written questions, asked oral questions or taken part in any debates on local government reform in Wales. Given that the hon. Member for Carmarthen had shown no interest in local government, why should he have been on the Standing Committee?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a facetious remark—and I shall treat it as such. There was obviously no intent to take the argument forward.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: As I am being discussed, may I point out that at that time my constituency had a strong interest in that matter, which involved Carmarthenshire county council? My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) represented Dyfed on the Committee; there was a strong territorial interest in being on it. That is quite different from what the Minister said. As the Bill affected my constituency, I wanted to be a member of the Committee that examined the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point and there is no reason for us to dwell on it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Might we dwell on that point just a little longer? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that Committee illustrated the frustration of Welsh legislation in the House? The Committee, with the support of hon. Members on both sides, defeated the Government on the issue of small counties in rural mid-Wales. The Government then chose to defeat the Committee on Report. However, the Government then decided to do exactly what the Committee had voted for in relation to Welsh local government, for English local government. What sort of a Government is that?

Mr. Griffiths: That was one of the ironies of the Local Government (Wales) Bill—Conservative members of the Committee were lobby fodder for the Government in terms of voting for a unitary system of government in Wales, but back home they fought tooth and nail to stop the local government boundary commission introducing unitary government in their constituencies. The reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill was the first occasion on which all the Opposition parties in Wales were united in the presentation of an argument against the Government's proposals.
The Welsh Grand Committee ought to be given the opportunity to have a positive say on Bills that affect only Wales. Of course, the Bills would then be considered in Committee, according to the normal procedures of the House. At least there would have been genuine approval of the principles of the measure by the Welsh Grand Committee.
When the Secretary of State winds up the debate, I hope that he will accept all our amendments and perhaps elaborate on how he hopes to put into effect the procedure for ensuring that the Welsh language amendment can be considered in detail by the House before the summer recess.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): This interesting and varied debate has contained some constructive suggestions and a little synthetic indignation from time to time. I shall respond to the points that have been made. It is worth remembering that the objective that we are seeking to address with these motions is one on which there is a good deal of common ground across the Floor of the House—although one might not have thought so at times this evening.
It is common ground that the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee need improving; no one suggested otherwise tonight. It is common ground that the Grand Committee, as it stands, has not always been felt to be the most useful forum for discussion. It is common ground that it has not always been useful for Back Benchers because of the time that is taken up by Front-Bench speeches in the Grand Committee as it stands. It is common ground that, as a result, the Committee is not widely reported and has a ritual element. We should be clear in our minds about that at the outset.
Undoubtedly, the proposals that the Leader of the House and I have brought before the House will make the Grand Committee more useful for Back Benchers and their constituents. They will increase the time that is available for Members to question Welsh Office Ministers. They will bring in the concept of short debates, which will have the merit that the Grand Committee can discuss different subjects and do so within time limits. They will bring the concept of Adjournment debates—a procedure used by the Scottish Grand Committee—into the Welsh Grand Committee. All those things will enhance the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: All that the Secretary of State has said in the past few minutes about the Welsh Grand Committee and its defects is true, and has been true for 17 years.
Why have the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland chosen this time to make similar proposals to change the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee discuss matters in Scotland and Wales respectively? Is it not the case that they have done so because they finally acknowledge that there is a case for devolution but are not prepared to answer it, so they are giving that answer to the people of Wales and the people of Scotland?

Mr. Hague: No. It is a completely separate argument from the constitutional arguments about devolution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) rightly said.
We know that the things I have said are common ground because many of the suggestions for changes in the Standing Orders were made by the Opposition. I might equally well ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) why he and other Labour Members produced their proposals for changes to the Grand Committee in the middle of November. We can all play the game of asking why things happened at a certain time.
I made proposals to the House on 30 November which largely, if not entirely, incorporated the Opposition's proposals. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)

described my proposals as a fig leaf. If he believes that our proposals have been a fig leaf, what does he think he was wearing when the Opposition proposed their changes in the proceedings of the Grand Committee a couple of weeks before my proposals?
That is the background to what has been described as an atmosphere of confrontation and no consultation—Opposition proposals that have been largely incorporated into the Government's proposals.
We have proposed further changes in the Standing Orders, which would go further than the proposals of Opposition Front Benchers. One such change is for the Committee to meet in different parts of Wales. That system seems to work well in Scotland; the Scottish Grand Committee has met in a variety of places. The Welsh Grand Committee has already met in Cardiff in the past. It was a mystery to me why the Opposition's proposals did not include that proposition.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Hague: I give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State mentioned two points that are a matter of contention between us.
First, when we made submissions—initially in 1993, but several times since—we said that we wanted the Welsh Grand Committee to have substantial powers to make decisions, not only to engage in the ritualistic passing of question and answer between Opposition and Government.
Secondly, the Welsh Grand Committee was able to meet in Cardiff without a change in the Standing Orders, so it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to claim that we need to change the Standing Orders to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Cardiff. It already can meet in Cardiff; it requires no change in the Standing Orders. That is why we did not propose any such changes.

Mr. Hague: It nevertheless remains the case that that is a proposal that we made which was not made by the hon. Gentleman. He has not expressed any opposition to it, however, so it is one of the things on which there appears to be agreement across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but we must get this clear. It was the Opposition who insisted, in 1993, that the Welsh Grand Committee should meet in Cardiff.

Mr. Hague: Then it is all the more surprising that that insistence was not carried through to talking about other locations. I am pleased that there is agreement across the House on that issue.
The second respect in which we took the proposals further is that we agreed that Ministers with United Kingdom-wide responsibilities—with responsibilities that cover Wales—should be able to attend the Welsh Grand Committee from time to time. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security, and my right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home


Secretary, all have responsibilities that directly cover Wales and it is right that they should be able to attend the Committee.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State talks about consultation. He must accept that when he came to the Welsh parliamentary party meeting that I chaired—we were thankful that he could come at such short notice—the Opposition thought that he had accepted some of the points made during the consultation process. We were amazed when he left the room and almost immediately reneged on some of the undertakings that he had made. If he talks about consultation and common ground, he must respect the statements that he made during those discussions.

Mr. Hague: Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment and discuss some of the subjects that we debated at that meeting of the parliamentary party.
All the proposals are aimed at improving the Committee's workings. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) expressed scepticism about the changes. He thought that they were set in a different context and had a different motive behind them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, this argument is different from a proposal to change the constitutional position. If a sinister motive to undermine the Labour party lay behind our proposals, why did the Labour party advance very similar proposals?
We do not need to change the Welsh Grand Committee and its proceedings in order to discredit the arguments for a Welsh Assembly; all that we have to do is to ask the hon. Member for Caerphilly to give another interview to "On the Record", where he treats repeated and authoritative reports of division in his party by saying that everything is clear. In one newspaper that I saw at the weekend, he was reported as saying that the Labour party's policy was clear and would become clearer. We do not need to change the Grand Committee in order to discredit such arguments.

Mr. Rowlands: In that case, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in any debate that we have on Welsh devolution in the next nine months or so, he will not submit the proposals as his alternative?

Mr. Hague: Certainly. This is not an alternative to devolution; it is an improvement in the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament in the context of a UK Parliament. The proposal creates a Committee which hon. Members will find more useful, to which people will want to listen and which will do a better job of scrutinising the work of the Executive. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney sees it in a particular context—if the measure were set in that context, I could understand his scepticism, but it is not. We have already incorporated many of the proposals made by Opposition Members, who have had many opportunities to add to them.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, I wrote to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 14 December and offered a meeting. The hon. Gentleman says that I did not, but I have the letter, which states:
I would welcome your comments on them"—
the proposals—
and would be ready to discuss the changes if you would find that helpful.
If that is not offering a meeting, I do not know what is. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is offering a meeting, his difficulty will not be if the Committee uses the Welsh language, but if it uses the English language for discussion.
I met the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss the subject and clearly asked them what alternative proposals they had. To be fair, they all made it clear in their letters that they would have preferred the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, but that is not common ground across the Floor of the House. I asked them for specific amendments to the Standing Orders as proposed and there was much sucking of teeth and furrowing of brows. It was suggested that we should not lay down a time of 10.30 am for meetings in different parts of Wales, as that might prove logistically difficult, and that proposal was changed in the Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that nothing had been changed as a result of his suggestions, but that change has been made.
I was asked to discuss all those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee. That seems to have been the main bone of contention this evening. I have never deviated from my view that it is the House that has power to change Standing Orders, that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in general—not just Welsh Members—and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I recall expressing that view at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, as well as in a television interview afterwards.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice. I must give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Caernarfon later.

Mr. Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is giving way to me out of choice rather than necessity, but I am grateful to him in any event.
If the Secretary of State believes now, and has always believed, that it is inappropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss such changes, why did the Government suggest—via the usual channels—that, rather than debating the subject on the Floor of the House, we should do so in the Committee?

Mr. Hague: I have made no such suggestion. I have consistently said that these matters should be discussed and resolved on the Floor of the House—and here we are, resolving them on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State will recall that a number of constructive proposals were advanced.


I acknowledge that one, relating to the variation of the starting time in rural Wales, has been taken on board; but why did not the right hon. Gentleman take on board the suggestion relating to European Standing Committee procedure, which I believe commands considerable support in the House?

Mr. Hague: I was coming to that and, if I do not take too many more interventions, I shall be able to explain more about the Government's position.
In the meeting to which I have referred, we engaged in a constructive discussion of a number of matters. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked for reassurances about the timing and content of debates in the Welsh Grand Committee being determined by the usual channels, rather than solely dictated by the Government, and I gave him those reassurances. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and others made their point about the possible value of the Committee's discussing Select Committee reports; I agreed, and I am perfectly amenable to the idea of Conservative-led discussions over the coming months.
In the meeting, I specifically said that I was amenable to the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney with regard to European Standing Committee procedure, and said that I was amenable. Let me make it clear that the procedure can be adopted under the proposed Standing Orders: a debate in the Grand Committee on a matter referred to it by the House could be a debate of the type cited by the hon. Gentleman, and could be dealt with in the same style as a European Standing Committee debate. I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of using one of the Grand Committee's meetings for that purpose in the coming months—but, according to all the advice that I have received, we do not need to change the proposed Standing Orders to achieve that.
During the meeting, the hon. Member for Caernarfon and I discussed the number of meetings that should take place. I think that he was relatively reassured by what I said. Some hon. Members mentioned the use of the Welsh language; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made an announcement about that earlier today. I do not think it fair to say that consultation has been ignored during the process that has taken place.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hague: I must press on, because I want to comment on the amendments. If there is time, however, I will give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
We have heard some proposals this evening that were not made during our consultations, although there is nothing wrong with that. It has been proposed, for instance, that the Committee's quorum should be smaller. Given that the Committee became inquorate at various times during its most recent meeting, the proposition is not entirely unreasonable. The quorum of the Scottish Grand Committee is 10, as has been pointed out. That is a fair point, and the Government will accept the amendment.
Other amendments refer to the use of the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the matter could be referred to the Procedure Committee. We recognise that powerful points have been made. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) did not need to watch me on television at the Council of Ministers, listening to a simultaneous translation; he could have seen me chairing a meeting this morning in the chamber of Montgomeryshire district council, half of which was conducted in Welsh. I readily appreciate the ease, speed and simplicity with which those arrangements can be introduced and how many of the places in which the Grand Committee could meet already have the relevant equipment. All those factors must be borne in mind by the Procedure Committee which, of course, must also bear in mind the important change of principle that would be involved for the House as a whole. We intend the Committee to examine all those questions. There are other things—

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Hague: I must deal with the remaining points.
We have had frank disagreements on other matters. There were proposals for an increased or enhanced legislative role for the Grand Committee. Of course, the hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke from a completely different viewpoint on these matters. He has a wholly different perception of how the United Kingdom should be governed. We understand that; he wants to take the United Kingdom apart, so we approach the subject quite differently. We are making our proposals on the basis of the government of the UK as a whole.
There have been elections in which the Labour party won in the UK as a whole entirely because of votes cast in Scotland and Wales. Everyone accepted that, and I have never noticed Labour saying that English Members should make separate legislative decisions because they won a majority only because of votes cast in Scotland. The UK continues to be governed on the original basis.
Amendment (p) would set up the role of the Welsh Grand Committee quite differently from that of the Scottish Grand Committee, the European Standing Committees, Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation and Second Reading Committees, so we cannot accept it.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wanted to intervene, and I now have time to give way to him.

Mr. Rowlands: I had intended to press my amendment to a vote, so I want further clarification from the Secretary of State. The key to amendment (dd) is the second paragraph which sets out a specific procedure about the first hour of questions. That provision does not appear in the draft Standing Orders, which contain many prescriptive procedural provisions. I cannot see how the provision that I seek can be added or informally agreed unless it is part of the Standing Order itself.

Mr. Hague: My advice is that it is possible to adopt the procedure that the hon. Gentleman envisages under the proposed Standing Orders. A Minister can make a statement and be questioned on it. That will be followed by a debate. The difficulty with the amendment is that it


also contains other proposals, such as deciding matters on a substantive motion—perhaps that might be suggested in the amendment linked with amendment (dd).
I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that if any difficulty arises in the coming months in following the procedure that he advocates, I shall certainly want to introduce a further change by way of clarification. I assure him that all my advice is in the direction that he seeks.
The changes are being proposed on the basis of government of the United Kingdom. That is the key to them, and it is the difference between our proposals and those of some Opposition Members. We have suggested a series of proposals to improve the workings of the Grand Committee. No one who has attended its meetings can fail to think anything other than that its proceedings should be improved. We have incorporated proposals made by the Opposition, but, in many respects, we have gone further, which is unfortunate for members of the Labour Front Bench who have struggled ever since to make this a party issue.
We have taken the proposals through a consultation process during which a number of additional ideas have been accepted. We have brought them for debate to the Floor of the House where we propose to accept further amendments which have only now been brought forward. That lengthy procedure, in which every Welsh Member has had the opportunity to participate, has been described at times as lacking in consultation or disgraceful. This full evening's debate on the Floor of the House has, oddly, been described by the hon. Member for Caerphilly as restrictive. This is the first time that a full evening's debate on the Floor of the House, as opposed to a debate in Committee, has been described as restrictive.
After examination, and given the range of reasons for improving the workings of the Grand Committee, we have now come to the right proposals. It is time to press ahead with them, so I commend them to the House and I hope that they will receive its support. Amendments that do not fit in with them, other than those that I have already shown flexibility over or that I have accepted, should be rejected by the House.

Amendment proposed: (a), in line 15, leave out 'five' and insert `three'.—[Mr. Ron. Davies.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 164.

Division No. 71]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corston, Jean
Llwyd, Erfyn


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Marek,Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun





Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Greg Pope.


Sutcliffe, Gerry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Amess, David
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Baldry, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Harris, David


Bates, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Bellingham, Henry
Heald, Oliver


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Booth, Hartley
Hendry, Charles


Boswell, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Horam, John


Bowis, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jack, Michael


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burt, Alistair
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Carttiss, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clappison, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Knapman, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Congdon, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Leigh, Edward


Couchman, James
Lidington, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Luff, Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
MacKay, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dicks, Terry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamifton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Sir Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Neubert, Sir Michael


Elletson, Harold
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Ottaway, Richard


Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Pawsey, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forman, Nigel
Richards, Rod


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Riddick, Graham


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Robathan, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


French, Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gallie, Phil
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Garnier, Edward
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela






Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Ward, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Sykes, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the remaining Questions relating to Welsh Business which she was then required to put, pursuant to Order [this day].

Amendment made: (ff), in line 18, at end insert—

'(1A) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))'.—[Mr. Ran Davies.]

Amendment proposed: (p), in line 116, after `committee', insert—

'the committee having recommended that the bill be read a second time'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 157.

Division No. 72]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea East)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
McWilliam, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Marek, DrJohn


Callaghan, Jim
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Michael, Alun


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Pike, Peter L


Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)
Rogers, Allan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Salmond, Alex



Dafis, Cynog
Simpson, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Spellar, John


Dixon, Don
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Dowd, Jim
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Flynn, Paul
Timms, Stephen


Foulkes, George
Wgley, Dafydd


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Hain, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Greg Pope.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bates, Michael





Bellingham, Henry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Booth, Hartley
Knapman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Bowis, John
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Brandreth, Gyles
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Bright, Sir Graham
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burt, Alistair
Luff, Peter


Butler, Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacKay, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Malone, Gerald


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Coe, Sebastian
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Congdon, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Moate, Sir Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Couchman, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Norris, Steve


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ottaway, Richard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Page, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)



Deva, Nirj Joseph
Paice, James


Devlin, Tim
Pawsey, James


Dicks, Terry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Richards, Rod


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Durant, Sir Anthony
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Dykes, Hugh
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Elletson, Harold
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Evennett, David
Soames, Nicholas


Faber, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Forman, Nigel
Spink, Dr Robert


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Spring, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Sproat, Iain


French, Douglas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Gallie, Phil
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Garnier, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gillan, Cheryl
Sweeney, Walter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Sykes, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Thomason, Roy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Trend, Michael


Harris, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Hawkins, Nick
Walden, George


Heald, Oliver
Waller, Gary


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ward, John


Hendry, Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Heseltne, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Watts, John


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Whittingdale, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Jack, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jessel, Toby



Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Derek Conway.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 50.

Division No. 73]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Alexander, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Amess, David
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawkins, Nick


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Hendry, Charles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bellingham, Henry
Horam, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Booth, Hartley
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hunter, Andrew


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian

Jenkin, Bernard


Bright, Sir Graham
Jessel, Toby


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Bums, Simon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)



Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lidington, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Congdon, David
Luff, Peter


Conway, Derek
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
MacKay, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cran, James
Malone, Gerald


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Moate, Sir Roger


Devlin, Tim
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dicks, Terry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Norris, Steve


Dover, Den
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Durant, Sir Anthony
Paice, James


Dykes, Hugh
Pawsey, James


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Elletson, Harold
Richards, Rod


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Robathan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Evennett, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Faber, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Forman, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian



Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


French, Douglas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gallie, Phil
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Gill, Christopher
Spink, Dr Robert


Gillan, Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Sproat, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stephen, Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary





Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, John
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McWilliam, John


Barron, Kevin
Marek, Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F
Maxton, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Michael, Alun


Callaghan, Jim
Morgan, Rhodri


Campbell-Savours, D N
Pike, Peter L


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Pope, Greg


Clarke, Eric (Midtothian)
Rogers, Allan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Salmond, Alex


Dafls, Cynog
Simpson, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Spellar, John


Dixon, Don
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Dowd, Jim
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Eastham, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Foulkes, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;
(2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";
(3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and
(4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.


A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)

(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.
(2) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).
(3) The business of the committee shall include—

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));


(b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));
(c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
(d) bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills));
(e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and
(f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).

(4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.


C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)

(1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.
(3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
(4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
(5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

(b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.
(c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.


(6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.


D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)

(1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
(2) Ministerial statements may be made—

(a) at the commencement of a sitting; or
(b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or
(c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

(3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.
(4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this Order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

E. Welsh Grand Committee (bills)

(1) A motion, of which at least ten days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:
Provided that no such notice shall be given until the bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.

(2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.
(3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)

(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.

G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)
(1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—

(a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;
(b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock, or at half-past ten o'clock and between four o'clock and six o'clock;
(c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and
(d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;


(e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and
(f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;

and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.

(2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.
(3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
(4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.
(5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

ESTIMATES [2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph ( 5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) and the Order [this day], put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates 1995–96.

Class XIII, Vote 4

Question put,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 10.

Division No. 74]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowis, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian


Bates, Michael
Bright, Sir Graham





Browning, Mrs Angela
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Burns, Simon
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Burt, Alistair
Lidington, David


Butler, Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Congdon, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Maitland, Lady Olga


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cran, James
Moate, Sir Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Devlin, Tim
Nichcfls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norris, Steve


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ottaway, Richard


Dover, Den
Paice, James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Pawsey, James


Dykes, Hugh
Richards, Rod


Elletson, Harold
Riddick, Graham


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Forman, Nigel
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


 Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Shepherd, Sir Coiin (Hereford)



Skeet, Sir Trevor


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


French, Douglas
Soames Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
Spencer, Sir Derek


Garnier, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert



Gill, Christopher
Sproat, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stephen, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Streeter, Gary


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sweeney, Walter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thomason, Roy


Harris, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Waller, Gary


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Waterson, Nigel


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Wells, Bowen


Jack, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Jessel, Toby
Wolfson, Mark


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)





NOES


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Foulkes, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Llwyd, Elfyn



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Alan Simpson.


Salmond, Alex

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.).

ESTIMATES 1996–97 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 52,050 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES 1996–97 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 140,260 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 131,500 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 59,000 for the Territorial Army.

ESTIMATES 1996–97 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 70,100 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,305 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,310 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1994–95

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £148,670,792.82 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1995, as set out in House of Commons paper No. 196.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1995–96

Resolved,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £3,426,734,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1996, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 197 and 260.

Ordered,

That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates 1995–96 and the Estimates, Excesses, 1994–95; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Michael Jack do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1995 and 1996; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Pensioner War Veterans

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to take up the case of my constituent, Mr. Jack Conn, which is linked to the cases of many constituents of other hon. Members.
Mr. Conn served in the Royal Medical Corps from 1 November 1939 to May 1946 and rose to the rank of acting corporal. He saw service in the middle east from 1942, and spent most of the time there until he left the Army.
Mr. Conn had, by all accounts, a fairly uneventful war, although, being in the Royal Medical Corps, he dealt with many casualties of battles such as El Alamein and beyond. Interestingly, his wife Sheena was the operator who sent the signal that conveyed from General Eisenhower's headquarters in Rheims the historic words:
unconditional surrender of all Gennan land, sea and air forces in Europe … all active operations cease".
That is a small by the bye for my hon. Friend the Minister.
On 13 June 1994, Mr. Conn, worried that he would have no medals for the 50th anniversary of VE day because they had been stolen from his son's house, contacted the Ministry of Defence medal office, requesting that his 1939–45 star, defence medal, Africa star and war medal be replaced, as they had been stolen in a burglary. They were being stored at his son's house at the time. The property was not insured because he had not believed that he had enough money to insure the medals.
Mr. Conn received a standard response, advising him that his records would he checked and that he would have to pay a charge to have his medals replaced. He had already sent his AB64 book and he thought that that would cover the search. He received another letter from the Ministry of Defence on 11 October 1994, saying that his records had not been found and asking that he fill in a further questionnaire, although he had already sent his AB64 which he had thought would be enough. The Ministry of Defence still needed more information.
Mr. Conn contacted me on 5 April 1995, and I went to the MOD and contacted the medal office, enclosing a copy of Mr. Conn's AB64, which he had sent to the MOD the previous year without much success.
Eventually, on 11 May, I received a letter from my hon. Friend Lord Henley, then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, saying that Mr. Conn's service records were still unavailable, but that he expected that his application for replacement medals would be finalised by July. That was during the 50th anniversary year and obviously it was important that Mr. Conn had the medals in the year.
On 18 August, I had to write to my noble Friend Earl Howe, who had replaced Lord Henley, asking what had happened to the application as Mr. Conn had heard nothing further from the MOD. On 8 September, my noble Friend responded, confirming that the medals that Mr. Conn was entitled to receive were there and saying that it would cost him £56.95 plus postage to have them sent to him.
Mr. Conn contacted me again to say that, unfortunately, he was unable to afford that sum at that time and would therefore be unable to claim his medals. Like many people, he was under financial restraints as a pensioner and the charge would, he believed, add to his outgoings and he could not justify it.
It is interesting to note that when the local pensioner group of which Mr. Conn is a member took up his case, the secretary received a letter from the medal office saying:
Free replacements would be an unfair burden on official finances and it would be impossible to manage such a procedure and effect control to avoid abuse.
It was that statement that annoyed, if not concerned, Mr. Conn, as he felt that he was being dismissed as a problem rather than being seen as part of a previous solution.
I was subsequently asked by my constituents to petition Parliament. There were 1,400 names on the petition, which I lodged behind the Chair. Many of those names came from outside the constituency and I received a flood a letters at the time from many people laying out similar cases and problems. The petition requested that the House urge the Ministry of Defence to consider the plight of Mr. Conn and others of like disposition, having been awarded medals in recognition of their service in the armed forces of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessors, and having been deprived of them by unlawful means or by misadventure and now being unable to replace them, and to endeavour to replace those medals. In essence, that is what tonight's debate is about; it is about the spirit behind that petition.
There was a small press campaign in The Sun to gain support for the cause. I received some fascinating letters as a result of that campaign, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to just one of them. It was from Mrs. Marie Meikleham of Andersonstown, Belfast, who had just paid the same sum for her husband's RAF medals. That amount of money constituted her weekly income from her pension and she felt that, although she had paid it, she had had to make some serious savings elsewhere. Her letter stated:
I recently paid £56.89 to the RAF to have my late husband's medals replaced … He died 19 years ago after suffering five heart attacks in six years. Professor Frank Partridge, who was also a prisoner of war in the Far East, and a very well known heart specialist, told us that my husband's heart problems were probably caused by a lack of B1 while a prisoner.
I do not intend to draw on that letter too much, but it strikes me that Mrs. Meikleham's husband had died and she wished to have some memento of her husband, whose medals had obviously disappeared. She found herself in an invidious position; despite the fact that her husband, like many others, had put his life on the line for this country, she found that she had to pay for the medals. She had to pay what seemed to me to be a reasonably small sum, but was, to her and many like her, a large sum.
Realising that the problem was so widespread, I presented an early-day motion. To date, about 122 hon. Members have signed it; I asked only about 50 to do so but, remarkably, over the following few weeks, more and more hon. Members went to the Table Office and added their names. That is unusual; I did not chase them, but clearly the cause struck a chord with many of my colleagues.
I later received a letter from Earl Howe in response to another letter that I sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the cost of the medals. Once again, the Ministry of Defence stayed with the line that the cost of replacing those medals must be borne by the recipient.
I should like to raise a few thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Are we going to go through this saga every time we come up to the 50th anniversary of important military actions in which our constituents and their parents have fought—such as those in Korea or Malaysia? If many of those dismissive letters are sent out, it augurs ill for the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and pensioner groups, many of whom include veterans.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is perhaps unique in Government in that he is one of a dwindling number of people who have seen service in the armed forces. I hope that he understands the importance of medals to many people—I am pleased to see him on the Front Bench to respond to me tonight.
Many like Jack Conn were not boy's own heroes, but simply went out and served their country. But it is that very sense of service that is at stake tonight. It is the fact that when their country called on them, they were not found wanting. Many of their friends and colleagues, who will be remembered through the medals, are not here today, because they were not as lucky as Mr. Conn and his like. The medals are a doorway to the past—a way of opening up memories and handing them on to their children.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I am the last person to ask for increased Government expenditure, and I am not making an exception here. Such a small amount could probably be saved from any number of administrative budgets in almost any Whitehall Department.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The £30 million of compensation to Spanish fishermen, for instance.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend places yet another amount on the table. I should be grateful if that were taken into consideration.
We set great store by entertaining overseas dignitaries and others. I wonder who comes first at the end of the day, when the budgets come up for grabs.
I make no apology for calling the debate, or for detaining the House longer than necessary. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to accept my suggestion that the Government should find some way of paying for the medals, I urge him to accept the natural justice of the case, and to find some way in which Mr. Conn and others like him can receive their medals so that they need not, in exceptional circumstances, make the invidious choice of doing without medals which are important to them and which they may wish to pass on.
I hope that all Members of Parliament, from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister downwards, will consider it fair and reasonable for my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers to understand the true nature of the

sacrifice made by these men and women, and will make recompense by giving them what they deserve—their medals—as soon as possible.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and on presenting his case in such a measured and moving manner. As a former Scots Guardsman, he is a worthy and eminently well-qualified champion of the cause of our service veterans—and this is not the first representation that he has made on their behalf. He has written to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, laid a substantial petition before the House and tabled an early-day motion which has—as he said—commanded substantial and largely unsought support. I am sure that those who have given a great deal in the service of their country welcome his support, and the robust, clear and sensible way in which he presented his case.
Campaign medals have been awarded to officers since the Armada, and to other ranks since the battle of Waterloo. Gallantry awards have a similar history: the Crimean war saw the introduction of the distinguished conduct medal for other ranks. All medals are a tangible reminder of gallant exploits, and are naturally a source of considerable pride both to those to whom they are awarded and to their families. After all, they represent public recognition of dedicated and honourable service to the Crown, sometimes in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Any of us who saw it need only recall the unbelievable, very moving and memorable sight of the massed ranks of veterans marching on the VE and VJ day parades last year to realise the wholesome pride and inestimable value that veterans rightly attach to their medals.
Before I deal with the points made by my hon. Friend, let me point out that—as he said—he sees the issue in a broader context than that of Mr. Conn. I trust that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I set out a little of the background. He outlined the details of one case, but I know that he will not wish rime to limit the scope of my response. I hope that what I say will clarify the position of Mr. Conn, whose interests he has represented so tenaciously.
Our policy on the issue of medals is clear, and has been followed by all Governments. First-issue medals are issued free of charge to recipients; replacements are issued in certain circumstances on a pre-payment basis. All who have qualified for medals receive their awards free of charge. If they are still serving—as is the case with many medals awarded for service in the Falklands, with the coalition forces in the Gulf, in Northern Ireland or, most recently, with the United Nations protection force and the implementation force in Bosnia—service men are given their medals to wear with their uniform by their commanding officers.
In the case of service rendered during the two world wars, campaign medals were issued after the majority of service men were demobbed. After the first world war, medals were issued to individuals or their next of kin automatically. The situation after the second world war was slightly different, as ex-service men were invited to apply for their medals. Many did and received them at the


time. Others did not, and it was not until the celebrations last year stimulated, for obvious reasons, wonderful, happy old memories—and not such happy old memories—that many finally came forward. Although, I regret to say, because of that there have been inevitable delays in issuing medals—delays caused by the sudden, immense demand—all those who have made their first application are entitled to free issue of their awards.
Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the medal offices in Droitwich, Innsworth and Gosport, who have dealt with a huge number of applications in a very short time. Their work has brought great pleasure to many veterans and their families.
I should stress that, once issued, medals are, in common with any other personal belongings, the responsibility of the recipient. We expect those who are entrusted with their safety, whether veterans or their families, to take reasonable care of them and ensure that they are safe from casual loss. Most people have their medals insured as part of their house contents policy and do not leave them lying about or loan them to others without first considering their safety.
If an individual chooses not to take such care, or not to take out such a policy, it is entirely his own decision. To do so is not mandatory; nor, of course, am I suggesting that it should be, but there are always those who trust to luck that they will not suffer the unspeakable and unfortunate invasion of privacy or unforeseen disaster that might result in the theft of their valuables and do not make adequate provision for that possibility. My hon. Friend and I would not disagree about that, and such an event is, of course, a tragedy. I have every sympathy for those who suffer what is undeniably a trauma, but we cannot escape the fact that it was entirely due to their free choice.
I entirely understand and accept that medals will be lost in wholly unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that, despite the very best efforts of those looking after them, some medals will be mislaid through theft, fire, flood or other natural disaster. In such cases, my Department does all that it can to provide replacements where entitlement has been confirmed from surviving service records and where proof of loss has been provided by the claimant. We ask for copies of police reports or insurance claims to prove genuine loss.
Regrettably, when records are not to hand, the process of reassessment of entitlement can take many months to complete. To ensure that all are treated fairly, claims are dealt with in the strict order that they are received. Nevertheless, we are happy to provide replacements in such cases.
My hon. Friend will be aware that this policy extends, where medal stocks allow, even to veterans who served as long ago as the first world war. That alone is an extraordinarily remarkable feat—let us not forget that this is for service rendered some 80 years ago. In addition, if the circumstances are as I have outlined, my Department may supply replacement medals to first-generation next of kin.
I come now to the point of my hon. Friend's complaint. My Department does charge for the costs of replacing lost or stolen medals. Although we freely and willingly issue medals in the first place for nothing, we do not consider it appropriate for the taxpayer to foot the bill for replacements, although I accept what my hon. Friend said about the sum of money involved.
Replacements for medals lost in circumstances beyond the owner's control are therefore supplied only on pre-payment of the appropriate charge. I understand that this position is shared by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, which has confirmed that it is its practice to issue replacement insignia or medals only on pre-payment.
I fully understand and acknowledge the splendid efforts made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Conn. I understand that Mr. Conn lost his medals, the 1939–45 star, the Africa star, the defence medal and war medal—all of which are very honourable and form an impressive line-up by anyone's stretch of service—during a burglary at his son's home. The House and I have every sympathy for him. He is, as he knows, entitled to have his medals replaced on pre-payment of £56.95, the cost of the medals and postage. Unfortunately, we cannot make an exception in his case, since to treat an individual specially would be to treat many others unfairly.
I hasten to add that our policy of charging for the replacement of lost medals is not a new one dreamt up by a wicked, parsimonious Government. As early as 1899, paragraph 2042 of Queen's Regulations stated that
replacement at public expense will not be recommended unless the loss is proved to come under (a)",
that is,
when the soldier was on duty and from causes entirely beyond his control".
We expect that the costs of providing replacement medals, whether to the recipient, serving or non-serving, or to relatives should not be borne by the defence budget. To do so would be a foolish waste of money.
I make it abundantly clear that, as my hon. Friend will understand, the Ministry of Defence is not in the business of selling campaign medals for profit. We leave that business to independent medal dealers. The charge for replacing medals represents the unit cost of doing so and is carefully costed from different elements.
Medals are manufactured for us by the Royal Mint, which invoices my Department for its services and for its material costs, including any bullion charges involved. Most campaign medals are, of course, made from base metals, but others have a precious metal content. On top of that, my Department makes a small administrative charge, which is intended to cover purely the staff cost of checking medal entitlement from records kept at the appropriate medal office, or, more expensively, of recovering an individual's service records from the archives. My hon. Friend will know better than me that that is an appallingly difficult task. Finally, value added tax will be charged if the recipient resides in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the value of medals can vary widely, even though the prices charged by my Department for certain categories of medal do not. For example, second world war campaign stars, which are issued in significant numbers, like the 1939–45 star or the France and Germany star, have only a marginal "collectors" value once they appear on the open market. In contrast, medals that were issued far less frequently, like the Aircrew Europe star, are worth more than £100 in a dealer's window, yet all three medals are issued as replacements on the pre-payment of just under £13. As my hon. Friend will realise, that is hardly the action of an organisation that seeks to amass profit.
In recent years, an increasing number of veterans have reported the loss of their medals for a variety of reasons. Apart from those such as theft or fire, for which little blame could be attached to the owner, other reasons cited have been house moves, medals being pawned or sold by the family or, understandably, medals being mislaid over the passage of time. I regret that, where the loss was avoidable or through simple carelessness, replacement medals clearly cannot be provided.
That will appear harsh on the face of it, but there are sound reasons for that stance. British campaign medals are highly prized, not in monetary terms, but because of what they represent. They are approved by the sovereign and granted for specific service where the rigours and hardship of campaigns justify national recognition. If we were to supply replacement medals on demand, without thought or care as to how the originals have been lost, the honours system's integrity would be undermined. We know that some individuals seek to abuse the system by falsely claiming replacement medals as spares, or more cynically for monetary gain. That is clearly unacceptable.
The onus must be on the owner to take good care of medals awarded by the sovereign on the nation's behalf in gratitude for loyal service. It would be wrong, after all, to use up stocks of medals by issuing them to people who had mislaid them at the expense of people awaiting their first issue.
I am glad that I have had the chance once again to pay tribute to the people who have given such service to this country over the years. I am grateful to my hon. Friend

for allowing me the opportunity to set out my Department's policy. Although some medals have a high collectors value, it is the emotional and sentimental attachments of those emblems of past honour that are so important and I accept that they are what is so important to Mr. Conn and to his family. I am pleased to report that medals for service rendered many years previously are still available to people entitled to receive them. I confirm that it is the policy that first-issue medals are distributed by a grateful nation free of any charge and I hope that that will always happen.
It is entirely reasonable, however, for the Ministry of Defence to seek pre-payment for any replacement medals that are issued to recipients or their next of kin, following loss beyond their control. I do not consider it an appropriate charge to the taxpayer to pay for such replacements. If people choose not to protect their valuables through a simple insurance policy, that is their choice. If they do not take out insurance, they must be prepared to pay for replacement medals.
As I have said, no one is better qualified or more suited to raise such a matter than my hon. Friend. I hope that he will understand that I deeply regret that I am not able to accede to his request in this case. He has done a signal and valuable service in raising the matter. We have dealt with Mr. Conn's case, as we deal with all medal cases, with great care and diligence. I am most grateful, as I am sure is the House, to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter of behalf of his constituent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.